" iOS devices prevent installation of any GPL software."
In what way? It is the GPL that prevents GPL software from being distributed via the App Store. Frankly, I see no reason why it should be a problem, as the binary distributed that way could easily link to a web page with the source.... but I remember a bunch of "Free" software types raising a stink when someone uploaded a GPLed App.
Apple doesn't care, so long as it isn't using private APIs, or stealing users data, or contain malware, etc.
You guys never seem to give Apple honest credit for what it does. For instance, before the App Store, independant software developers could not get apps on mobile devices, because the carriers controlled the ecosystem. Apple opened it up and made it a level playing field and now there are hundreds of startups targeting the mobile device market. Google didn't do that, Google just copied it. It was Apple that used its clout to force the carriers to accept the AppStore.
I install whatever software I want on my iPhone, and I don't have to ask Apple before I do it. I can install software with any license I want- apache, GPL, whatever. And I haven't jailbroken my phone.
You're shifting the goalposts. Stallman is complaining about the AppStore which is where Apple sells software and Apple chooses not to sell pornography. That's their choice.
Any consumer, with an iPhone that is not jailbroken, can install whatever software they want, provided it is written in HTML and javascript. The iPhone is a totally open, standards based, host, and Apple exercises no control over it. You can even go visit porn sites.
Further, Apple has worked to make this platform a first rate citizen in its operating system. HTML/Javascript Apps can be installed, added to the home screen, can have local data, and can run when there is no network connection, and they can do absolutely whatever you want.
I'm an iOS developer & a fan of the app store system (from the small indie developers point of view), but there is no way I can kid myself that iOS is an open platform.
Javascript & HTML are very nice inclusions, but really unless you can run arbitrary native code on the device I don't think it counts.
I don't, but I fully agree with Stallman that the fact that it accustoms people to the notion that they shouldn't expect to have complete control over hardware they own is a very, very wrong path to take.
Of course, like most of the things Stallman is right about, it's the kind of thing you don't notice until it actually affects you.
If you, Stallman and whoever are talking about what people learn (I.e. they don't have complete control over hardware) it is near entirely useless to speak of those who do so.
Assuming everything Stallman holds dear to his beard is true and will benefit everyone, with effective teaching (So, people understand the idea, see why it would benefit and are able toact) people would begin to change.
Lambasting Apple, Microsoft and whoever is such a petty way to go about this and shows a certain lack of trust in their own ideas.
Steve Jobs showed more trust in his own ideas. He [and others he worked with] went ahead, built something, and people now use it. Jobs and friends seemed less worried about others and whatever their ideas and products were which seems to be the opposite of Stallman, companies, groups, etc.
"There are those who always speak of themselves, and they are either insecure or proud. There are those who always speak of others. They are usually very boring. There are those who speak of stirring ideas, compelling books, and inspiring doctrine. These are the few who make their mark in this world."
your "etc" glosses over a lot of other reasons apple will reject your app, ranging from "we're not going to tell you why" all the way up to "your superior implementation makes our built in functionality look dumb, so we'll ban your app to prevent users from getting confused."
Apple does not reject Apps without citing chapter and verse in the standards book, and often providing screenshots.
I'm not aware of any examples of the latter, but since the App Store has been created, there have been no manner of false stories from Apple bashers along these lines.
Here's a concrete one: Firefox Mobile exists for Android devices, but iOS users have to settle for "Firefox Home", an app which provides access to your Firefox bookmarks and lets you open them with Safari.
"In what way? It is the GPL that prevents GPL software from being distributed via the App Store. Frankly, I see no reason why it should be a problem, as the binary distributed that way could easily link to a web page with the source...."
The whole point of the GPL is that wherever GPL-covered software goes, the freedoms (to run, study, modify, and distribute the software) go with it. Availability of source code isn't the goal; it's just a necessary condition. Because iOS devices will only run code signed by Apple's keys (and Apple doesn't distribute those keys, obviously), it's impossible for a developer to distribute software via the App Store without separating the software from the freedoms. That's why it's not allowed.
In what way? It is the GPL that prevents GPL software from being distributed via the App Store. Frankly, I see no reason why it should be a problem, as the binary distributed that way could easily link to a web page with the source.... but I remember a bunch of "Free" software types raising a stink when someone uploaded a GPLed App.
Apple doesn't care, so long as it isn't using private APIs, or stealing users data, or contain malware, etc.
You guys never seem to give Apple honest credit for what it does. For instance, before the App Store, independant software developers could not get apps on mobile devices, because the carriers controlled the ecosystem. Apple opened it up and made it a level playing field and now there are hundreds of startups targeting the mobile device market. Google didn't do that, Google just copied it. It was Apple that used its clout to force the carriers to accept the AppStore.