5 ms·

Is there a technical reason why this couldn't be put on the app store? I've seen reference to Apple not allowing certain OSS code but never seen that confirmed

Is there a technical reason why this couldn't be put on the app store? I've seen reference to Apple not allowing certain OSS code but never seen that confirmed so I'm curious!

carl_dr 4y ago
In this case, the assets are licensed under a non-permissive license, so even if the code was a non-issue, that's the problem.
- imhoguy 4y ago
  Assets could be possibly downloaded from 3rd party site on user consent.
  - yreg 4y ago
    An app that doesn't work until you use it to pirate something? Yeah that wouldn't fly in App review.
    - fetzu 4y ago
      I understand the intricacies of it in terms of the App Store, but I don’t think grabbing Quake’s shareware assets qualifies as pirating.
  - Cthulhu_ 4y ago
    Yeah but 'user consent' don't make using assets legal.
- flohofwoe 4y ago
  It's probably legal for the 'shareware episode' assets (same for the Doom shareware version), although I guess it's better to let a lawyer dissect the license just to be sure: https://www.quakeworld.nu/wiki/Quake_Shareware_License https://www.quakeworld.nu/wiki/Quake_Shareware_License
- LexGray 4y ago
  This seems like a good use of AI. Get some random good enough textures to bundle. Give me a lake of pixelated radioactive acid.
  - anthk 4y ago
    Or just use a free as in freedom Quake data, such as Blasphemer.
cromka 4y ago
> I've seen reference to Apple not allowing certain OSS code b It's not that Apple doesn't allow anything here, they just impose their own T&C which breaches some, but not all, OSS licenses. And the workaround for the former is usually to have the contributors accept a small affidavit, which effectively puts their software in compliance with App Store.
- kmeisthax 4y ago
  Apple allows you to ship custom EULA language that supersedes the part of the App Store EULA that would ordinarily conflict with GPLv2. For example, this is what iSH uses to legally ship an entire x86 Linux userland inside of an app.
  - tzs 4y ago
    There is still one issue that I don't see how to resolve, even if you can supersede parts of the App Store EULA. If you copy and distribute the GPLv2 code or a work based on it in object or executable form, you have to do one of: a) Accompany it with the complete machine-readable source code; or b) Accompany it with a written offer valid for at least three years to give any third party a complete machine-readable copy of the source code, for a charge of no more than your cost of physically distributing the source; or c) Accompany it with the information you received to distribute such code, but only if your distribution is noncommercial and you received it in object or executable code. See GPLv2 section 3. A developer uploads a copy of their app to the App Store. Apple then makes copies and distributes it when people buy it (for free or for money) on the App Store. Since Apple is copying and distributing that GPLv2 code, Apple should have an obligation under GPLv2 section 3 to distribute the source. They would not be able to punt this obligation back on the developer via option c because their distribution is not noncommercial. This is a crucial difference between app stores (and other digital goods stores) and stores selling physical products that contain GPL code. Best Buy for example does not run into this problem when they sell you a TV that contains a Linux kernel because although they are in fact distributing a copy of a Linux kernel to you they did not make that copy. They received that copy from the TV manufacturer or a distributor and are just passing it along. Copyright law in most places contains an exception, often called the "first sale doctrine", which states that once the copyright owner releases a particular copy, those who legally obtain that copy can give it away or sell it or rent it without requiring permission of the copyright owner. That covers Best Buy's case. Unless there is some way to argue that when I but an app on the Apple App Store it is the developer who uploaded the app that is making the copy I get, I'm having trouble thinking of a way to avoid Apple having to handle GPLv2 source distribution if they let third party GPLv2 code on the store. First party GPLv2 code would be OK, because then the developer owns the copyright and so can grant Apple the rights to distribute it in binary form without source code. (It has been a long time since I've read Apple's developer agreement, but I think it requires the developer to give Apple such rights).
emsy 4y ago
The problem is that this is not something Apple wants to have on the App Store. They reject apps they deem arbitrarily unsuitable all the time.
- 4eleven7 4y ago
  Untrue. As long as it meets the technical requirements (ie, not using private APIs, doesn't excessively drain battery etc), and the licensing issues aren't a problem (some OSS licenses are an issue, as well as using the Quake assets may be an issue), there is no reason why Apple wouldn't approve a game for the Apple Watch on the App Store.
  - tiborsaas 4y ago
    They reject apps for being too simple so meeting technical requirements is clearly not enough.
    - 4eleven7 4y ago
      Yes, they publish their guidelines which states as such… but how is Quake 1 too simple? Downvote all you want, but within the context of Quake 1 being approved on the Apple Watch, “too simple” isn’t relevant.
      - tiborsaas 4y ago
        The point is that they can reject you for subjective reasons even if you fully comply technically.
        4eleven7 4y ago
        I've never heard, or seen that before. Everything I've ever seen rejected by Apple (either personally from my own apps, clients, or from press reports) has always been a guideline issue. So, "Subjective reasons" such as? Example? Here is an example of a 3D game running on the Apple Watch, that was approved by Apple, on the App Store, which looks rather "Quake like". Mindkeeper: The lurking fear (Apple Watch)[https://apps.apple.com/us/app/mindkeeper-the-lurking-fear/id https://apps.apple.com/us/app/mindkeeper-the-lurking-fear/id...]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
ramesh31 4y ago
Apple has purposely neutered the WatchOS API in all aspects for the sacred cow of battery life. They will never open up the hardware to what it can truly do. So we’re stuck with nothing but stupid fitness apps.
myownclone 4y ago
I did not even think about putting it there, and reason is not Apple (although maybe there would be a problem too), but simply the fact that Quake assets are still copyrighted, as opposed to the code. So I would have to replace the whole game asset package with something with friendly license...which would not be ... the original Quake.
- sordina 4y ago
  Thanks for responding! So if there was a quality OSS level pack that could be bundled then that would overcome the only obstacle?
  - myownclone 4y ago
    Good question. In theory - yes. The code is GPLv2 based, redistributing binaries (originals from Id) with my own changes while I also release the source code is compatible with the GPLv2 license, so I think license-wise, it could work. The question is what would Apple say in the app submission review...
    - sordina 4y ago
      Yes, it would be interesting to see Apple's response. Now I remember what made me ask this line of questions in the first place. In the release notes for J901 iOS I saw the following: "it is legally impossible to release a J IDE for iOS as an open source project due to restrictions imposed on app developers by both Apple Inc and the Open Source community". https://code.jsoftware.com/wiki/User:Ian_Clark/iOS/Review_Notes https://code.jsoftware.com/wiki/User:Ian_Clark/iOS/Review_No... Although there was no justification for this comment, but maybe it's just true due to enforcement.

Is there a technical reason why this couldn't be put on the app store? I've seen reference to Apple not allowing certain OSS code but never seen that confirmed so I'm curious!

carl_dr 4y ago

In this case, the assets are licensed under a non-permissive license, so even if the code was a non-issue, that's the problem.

imhoguy 4y ago
Assets could be possibly downloaded from 3rd party site on user consent.
- yreg 4y ago
  An app that doesn't work until you use it to pirate something? Yeah that wouldn't fly in App review.
  - fetzu 4y ago
    I understand the intricacies of it in terms of the App Store, but I don’t think grabbing Quake’s shareware assets qualifies as pirating.
- Cthulhu_ 4y ago
  Yeah but 'user consent' don't make using assets legal.
flohofwoe 4y ago
It's probably legal for the 'shareware episode' assets (same for the Doom shareware version), although I guess it's better to let a lawyer dissect the license just to be sure: https://www.quakeworld.nu/wiki/Quake_Shareware_License https://www.quakeworld.nu/wiki/Quake_Shareware_License
LexGray 4y ago
This seems like a good use of AI. Get some random good enough textures to bundle. Give me a lake of pixelated radioactive acid.
- anthk 4y ago
  Or just use a free as in freedom Quake data, such as Blasphemer.

cromka 4y ago

> I've seen reference to Apple not allowing certain OSS code b It's not that Apple doesn't allow anything here, they just impose their own T&C which breaches some, but not all, OSS licenses. And the workaround for the former is usually to have the contributors accept a small affidavit, which effectively puts their software in compliance with App Store.

kmeisthax 4y ago
Apple allows you to ship custom EULA language that supersedes the part of the App Store EULA that would ordinarily conflict with GPLv2. For example, this is what iSH uses to legally ship an entire x86 Linux userland inside of an app.
- tzs 4y ago
  There is still one issue that I don't see how to resolve, even if you can supersede parts of the App Store EULA. If you copy and distribute the GPLv2 code or a work based on it in object or executable form, you have to do one of: a) Accompany it with the complete machine-readable source code; or b) Accompany it with a written offer valid for at least three years to give any third party a complete machine-readable copy of the source code, for a charge of no more than your cost of physically distributing the source; or c) Accompany it with the information you received to distribute such code, but only if your distribution is noncommercial and you received it in object or executable code. See GPLv2 section 3. A developer uploads a copy of their app to the App Store. Apple then makes copies and distributes it when people buy it (for free or for money) on the App Store. Since Apple is copying and distributing that GPLv2 code, Apple should have an obligation under GPLv2 section 3 to distribute the source. They would not be able to punt this obligation back on the developer via option c because their distribution is not noncommercial. This is a crucial difference between app stores (and other digital goods stores) and stores selling physical products that contain GPL code. Best Buy for example does not run into this problem when they sell you a TV that contains a Linux kernel because although they are in fact distributing a copy of a Linux kernel to you they did not make that copy. They received that copy from the TV manufacturer or a distributor and are just passing it along. Copyright law in most places contains an exception, often called the "first sale doctrine", which states that once the copyright owner releases a particular copy, those who legally obtain that copy can give it away or sell it or rent it without requiring permission of the copyright owner. That covers Best Buy's case. Unless there is some way to argue that when I but an app on the Apple App Store it is the developer who uploaded the app that is making the copy I get, I'm having trouble thinking of a way to avoid Apple having to handle GPLv2 source distribution if they let third party GPLv2 code on the store. First party GPLv2 code would be OK, because then the developer owns the copyright and so can grant Apple the rights to distribute it in binary form without source code. (It has been a long time since I've read Apple's developer agreement, but I think it requires the developer to give Apple such rights).

emsy 4y ago

The problem is that this is not something Apple wants to have on the App Store. They reject apps they deem arbitrarily unsuitable all the time.

4eleven7 4y ago
Untrue. As long as it meets the technical requirements (ie, not using private APIs, doesn't excessively drain battery etc), and the licensing issues aren't a problem (some OSS licenses are an issue, as well as using the Quake assets may be an issue), there is no reason why Apple wouldn't approve a game for the Apple Watch on the App Store.
- tiborsaas 4y ago
  They reject apps for being too simple so meeting technical requirements is clearly not enough.
  - 4eleven7 4y ago
    Yes, they publish their guidelines which states as such… but how is Quake 1 too simple? Downvote all you want, but within the context of Quake 1 being approved on the Apple Watch, “too simple” isn’t relevant.
    - tiborsaas 4y ago
      The point is that they can reject you for subjective reasons even if you fully comply technically.
      - 4eleven7 4y ago
        I've never heard, or seen that before. Everything I've ever seen rejected by Apple (either personally from my own apps, clients, or from press reports) has always been a guideline issue. So, "Subjective reasons" such as? Example? Here is an example of a 3D game running on the Apple Watch, that was approved by Apple, on the App Store, which looks rather "Quake like". Mindkeeper: The lurking fear (Apple Watch)[https://apps.apple.com/us/app/mindkeeper-the-lurking-fear/id https://apps.apple.com/us/app/mindkeeper-the-lurking-fear/id...]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

ramesh31 4y ago

Apple has purposely neutered the WatchOS API in all aspects for the sacred cow of battery life. They will never open up the hardware to what it can truly do. So we’re stuck with nothing but stupid fitness apps.

myownclone 4y ago

I did not even think about putting it there, and reason is not Apple (although maybe there would be a problem too), but simply the fact that Quake assets are still copyrighted, as opposed to the code. So I would have to replace the whole game asset package with something with friendly license...which would not be ... the original Quake.

sordina 4y ago
Thanks for responding! So if there was a quality OSS level pack that could be bundled then that would overcome the only obstacle?
- myownclone 4y ago
  Good question. In theory - yes. The code is GPLv2 based, redistributing binaries (originals from Id) with my own changes while I also release the source code is compatible with the GPLv2 license, so I think license-wise, it could work. The question is what would Apple say in the app submission review...
  - sordina 4y ago
    Yes, it would be interesting to see Apple's response. Now I remember what made me ask this line of questions in the first place. In the release notes for J901 iOS I saw the following: "it is legally impossible to release a J IDE for iOS as an open source project due to restrictions imposed on app developers by both Apple Inc and the Open Source community". https://code.jsoftware.com/wiki/User:Ian_Clark/iOS/Review_Notes https://code.jsoftware.com/wiki/User:Ian_Clark/iOS/Review_No... Although there was no justification for this comment, but maybe it's just true due to enforcement.