与GPL解决苹果App Store不兼容

这里有一个供所有开源法律专家为社区研究和解决的想法。我今天看到苹果下架了VLC媒体播放器，因为GPL和苹果应用商店服务条款之间的冲突。的SJVN文章做了一个伟大的工作报告的问题之间的实际冲突GPL和苹果的服务条款之前的“不要问，不要说”行为引起了社会的关注，还有一个与App Store上的VLC软件无关的人向苹果提出了这个问题。我想可能有一个不同的解决方案。一个创建软件的人有能力在他们认为合适的情况下，以他们能够合理地创建的尽可能多的方式来授权它。很多人把这叫做“双重许可”后的开源世界MySQL AB用它作为自由软件许可软件社区在GPL下同时继续出售专有关闭单独许可下版软件的企业,希望更改软件和保护这些变化关闭。然而，对特定软件应用多个许可证的实践早于MySQL实践。Perl社区经常发布软件下的原始艺术许可证还有GPL使软件与其他GPL许可的软件很容易结合。GPL和艺术许可证的条款是不兼容的。（该艺术授权2.0解决了这个问题。）微软许可其软件的范围从企业协议等大宗许可下降到一个单独的副本在角落办公用品商店框收缩包装EULA不同的许可证下的专有方式给客户。这表明了开发商在自由软件也使用苹果应用程序商店的渠道让他们的软件在更多的观众面前强信徒的方式。该项目基本上可以创建一个使用GPL其更广泛的受众，并为可执行版本单独苹果的App Store发行许可证的双重许可方案及其衍生物它位于在App Store和进一步允许他人使用并发布在App Store上的二进制文件。该项目获胜。它维护使用GPL作为其贡献者和提交项目的社区，合同规定的软件自由的目标。项目社区之外，没有人能阻止的GPL创建一个封闭的版本。该项目获得苹果App Store的强大的分销渠道，促进软件的使用超出使用它来发布软件的自由善良的其他渠道。开发者和用户双赢的项目之外。他们仍然受益于自由确保受GPL，让他们检查，修改，并在他们认为合适分发软件。如果他们想从GPL下的项目网站下载该软件，修改软件，并加载它，他们可以。（苹果SDK允许一个加载自己开发的应用程序）。如果他们想分发其修改对苹果App Store的衍生物，他们能做到这一点为好，因为他们能做到这一点，通过该项目的苹果应用程序商店分发许可证。苹果并不关心。 Apple cares if you take the binaries from the App Store and re-distribute those particular binaries elsewhere out of Apple’s control. Apple cares if you try to reverse engineer Apple’s DRM. They created their Terms of Service to prevent such practices. Apple certainly doesn't care if a developer gives there software away for free on the App Store, and I'm betting they have no opinion on whether or not the developer believes in software freedom. This legal tactic may not solve the VLC problem, because if I read SJVN’s article correctly, it was another group that produced the Apple App Store version of the software. The dual license tactic needs to come from the project itself. I also understand that this feels like a legal shuffle that shouldn’t be needed or seems contradictory. But the reality is that two organizations with separate goals in mind have created two licenses that are incompatible in language because of those unrelated goals. This is not a contradictory situation in intent, but rather in language. They clash because of the ease in the digital web-enabled world for things to come together in ways that the legal and business community didn’t foresee in the fast low-friction world of the Internet. What’s needed is a little legal linguistic grease to enable the two organizations and their orthogonal goals to slide by one another. Trying to get the two organizations to work together to solve the situation would require massive amounts of good will that is likely missing between the two. It would also require them to care about the others goals. It would likely create more friction when other voices and opinions and interests get involved. A second separate license using all the rules in place will likely solve free software needs a whole lot faster than complaining to Apple or demonizing them unjustly in this case. So how simple a distribution license can be created (and how quickly) for free software projects to use as they dual distribute through the Apple App Store? Are there any free software friendly lawyers that want to take a try at this for the good of all? Or is this completely impractical?