Actually, i think that Wolfire would have considerably more success if they pointed out that iCoder's version of Lugaru was distributed via GPL (http://blog.wolfire.com/2010/05/Lugaru-goes-open-source ), and as a result iCoder's app is incompatible with App Store licensing requirements.

I initially thought this would be a problem for Wolfire too, but since it's their IP they can relicense it (well, dual-license) for distribution through the AppStore however they wish, dodging the sorts of conflicts that VLC had (over which it was rejected from the iOS app store: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2082505 ).

I find this interesting -- yours is the second reply I saw to mention GPL being incompatible with App Store licensing requirements.

Did I miss something? ID Software released Castle Wolfenstein to the IPhone with it being GPL licensed, and I thought Carmack was actually encouraging people to use the engine to create other games for the iPhone. Obviously folks other than Id Software can't relicense the engine under something other than the GPL, so if GPL licenses won't work on the App Store, how could he expect them to use the engine for iPhone apps?

How is it that the GPL is incompatible with the App Store's licensing requirements? This is the first I've heard of that.

This explains the FSF's position pretty well: http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/05/fsf-apples-itunes-...

More recently, this line of argumentation was used by a VLC contributor to pull a VLC port off the App Store by citing copyright infringement: http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/as_vlc_for_iphone_ipad_...

Thank you particularly for the arstechnica.com link. The way I read the discussion before, I was expecting the conflict to be originating with Apple (like something in their agreement forbidding the use of GPL'd software or something). But after reading that article I see that it is the FSF that has pointed out how Apple's App Store restrictions make apps using GPL licensed software out of compliance with the GPL. That makes more sense.

I doubt that ID Software GPL'd the version of Castle of Wolfenstein that they submitted to the AppStore. ID Software owns the copyright on Castle of Wolfenstein, so they can release it under whatever license they want. They can even release it under multiple licenses.

The GPL 'issue' is that, if I fork a popular project under the GPL, I don't own the copyright so I can only ever continue to release it under the GPL, I can't change the license because I don't have the legal right to. If I wanted to publish said GPL'd project to the AppStore, my only option would be to release it under the GPL, which is incompatible with App Store licensing requirements.

I know that if you fork a GPL licensed project, you have to release your version under GPL also. That's why I said "Obviously folks other than Id Software can't relicense the engine under something other than the GPL"

My question was, how is the GPL incompatible with App Store licensing requirements? I haven't seen that spelled out before. The reason I brought up Wolfenstein was because an article I read back when it was released for the iPhone led me to believe that Carmack was almost expecting (perhaps even looking forward to) people forking it and making their own games for the iPhone with it. That is why I was surprised to hear that the App Store wouldn't allow a GPL licensed application -- since that would make such an outcome impossible.

The GPL concerns how other people can use your code - if you release something under the GPL, you're not personally bound to it.

The trouble comes when you accept patches written by other people, because while you are still free to release 'non-free' versions of your code, you are bound by the GPL with your use of theirs. A good example is Linux - they can't really move to GPL 3, even if Linus wanted to. They would have to get 10s of thousands of people to agree to the change.

This is why some projects want you to give them copyright ownership in order to accept your patches.

The App Store is a distribution mechanism, and it imposes restrictions on distribution that the GPL does not have.

One such restriction is that any binary downloaded from the App Store is only licensed for usage by the user downloading it. You are legally forbidden to take that binary and copy it on another iPhone of another user (we aren't talking about technical details and how users could do that, but about what the iTunes App Store EULA says).

Bottom line is that the GPL doesn't allow the extra restrictions that the App Store is adding.

I think the probable outcome is "Wolfire -> Apple: DMCA", "Apple -> Pirate: You've been DMCAed.", "Pirate -> Apple: Counter-notification. We believe we have a valid license. The DMCA says that they have to sue us to prove otherwise.", "Apple -> Wolfire: Well crikey, they're right."

That leaves Apple legally covered, although I would bet they terminate the pirates under the It's Our System And You're Causing Us Negative PR So Eff Off provision.

No, that's not correct at all.

Under OCILLA/DMCA, counter-notification cannot be accepted by your provider and is not legally usable unless access to the alleged offending material has been completely prevented. 17 USC 512(d)(3). The material must stay removed completely for at minimum 10 (ten) business days and at most 14 (fourteen) business days to allow the complainant to file suit or otherwise obtain an injunction if they so desire. 17 USC 512(g)(2)(B) and (C). That's with a counter notice; without one, the material can never be restored.

So, your scenario then becomes:

    - Wolfire > Apple: DMCA
    - Apple > Pirate: We have received a DMCA and removed it
    - Pirate > Apple: Counter notice
    - Apple > Wolfire: Here's a counter, we will restore in 10 days unless you sue
    - (10 business days)
    - Apple > Pirate: OK, it's back

After the waiting period, you or the provider can restore access with the DMCA's blessing. DMCA only requires providers to "act expeditiously" to remove access to material, so what "expeditiously" means is left to interpretation. I doubt Apple would leave anything up for long, though.

When you get a serious DMCA complaint -- meaning, not one of the automatic-fire BitTorrent ones from MediaSentry or whatever -- try a counter-notice without removing the content and see what your provider does. If they abide by the law, they'll immediately reject it and ask you politely to remove the content, or they will for you.

But wait, you say, doesn't that encourage frivolous DMCA complaints to remove content from the Internet that I do not agree with? All I have to do is file a well-prepared DMCA complaint that asserts copyright and the content is federally required to disappear?

Answer: Yes.

(IANAL, but I have researched it extensively to draft policy.)

I checked the statute. You're right about a DMCA notice / counternotice exchange essentially requiring a minimum of 10 days of the disputed content being offline. Thanks, I like learning things.

This is a throw away account.

I am familiar with this process.

After the filing of the DMCA counter notification, the original developer has 10 days to file suit.

Then apple will take the offending material off the store.

So you've setup a throw away account, just so you can answer a question related to the DMCA counter notification?

Do you work for iCoder or something?

Contacting Apple though the blogosphere is a much better way to generate publicity for yourself and your software. This kind of story is always picked up everywhere.

I don't think Apple is refusing to do anything. The corporate wheels must turn. The spice must flow.