View Single Post
Old 08-13-2011, 04:14 PM   #72
murraypaul
Interested Bystander
murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 3,725
Karma: 19728152
Join Date: Jun 2008
Device: Note 4, Kobo One
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elfwreck View Post
The OS licenses predate the Apple license; those apps should never have been approved. I don't consider the OS supporters to be bad guys for saying, "no, you can't keep distributing our work in violation of the license by which it's made available." It's not difficult to comply with an OS license; Apple refused.
I was just addressing your original post "I just know that Apple has booted out a number of open source apps (some open source licenses clash with Apple's TOU), and Apple puts strict constraints on its apps.", which I read as suggesting that Apple had decided to remove (boot) the apps because of their open source nature, which is not the case, they were requested to remove them by their copyright owners.

Not sure how it is ok for X device to be distributed with Linux installed, and I be unable to install it on any other devices, but not ok for an app to be downloadable to only 5 iOS devices, but then I think the developers were just making a point really, weren't they?
murraypaul is offline   Reply With Quote