@cwebber But then you're not helping people on those platforms improve their situation, and instead will go to more closed but readily available options 🤔
@espectalll OTOH, if you relax on that point specifically you're enabling people on those systems who want to use your software be complacent in using an OS that's so user hostile they can't even run copylefted code.
@cwebber I mean, iOS still lets you use, at the very least, LGPL, right?
@cwebber Pretty sure it did and so apps such as VLC were published
@cwebber yeah, I think the same is true for others such as Firefox https://itunes.apple.com/app/vlc-for-mobile/id650377962?mt=8
@espectalll Firefox is under the MPL
@espectalll well, technically "tri-licensed" but effectively MPL
@cwebber Please check your knowledge before spreading potential misinformation and just try to do your best
@espectalll Well, MPL != LGPL. And looks like maybe LGPL v2.1+ is feasible on iOS, though maybe not LGPLv3+ (because of anti-tivotization provisions)?
It seems that with LGPL2.1+ you can use it but maybe not for proprietary code linking to the LGPL2.1 ... iirc this is in dispute though.
So, this is where dual-licensing *might* come in: In principle, authors of software licensed under otherwise iOS-incompatible terms are perfectly entitled *also* to put it on Apple's store so long as that store will accept it. It's a separate, parallel deal.
They just can't do that with someone else's code.
Whether and how often the code belongs completely to whomever wants to put it on the store, I don't know.
"I appreciate SDF but it's a general-purpose server and the name doesn't make it obvious that it's about art." - Eugen Rochko