|
|
| Line 5: |
Line 5: |
| }} | | }} |
|
| |
|
| [[File:Desktop-Linux-Mint.png|thumb|A screenshot of free and open-source software: [[Linux Mint]] running the [[Xfce]] [[desktop environment]], [[Firefox]], a calculator program, the built-in calendar, [[Vim (text editor)|Vim]], [[GIMP]], and [[VLC media player]]]]
| | '''Free and open-source software''' ('''FOSS''') is computer [[software]] that can be classified as both free software and [[open-source software]]. |
|
| |
|
| '''Free and open-source software''' ('''FOSS''') is [[computer software]] that can be classified as both [[free software]] and [[open-source software]].{{efn|FOSS is an inclusive term that covers both [[free software]] and [[open-source software]], which despite describing similar development models, have differing cultures and philosophies.{{sfn|Feller|2005|pages=89, 362}} ''Free'' refers to the users' freedom to copy and re-use the software. The [[Free Software Foundation]], an organization that advocates the free software model, suggests that, to understand the concept, one should "think of free as in free speech, not as in free beer". (See {{cite web | url = https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html | publisher = GNU.org | title = The Free Software Definition | accessdate =4 February 2010 }}) Free software focuses on the fundamental freedoms it gives to users, whereas open source software focuses on the perceived strengths of its peer-to-peer development model.{{sfn|Feller|2005|pages=101–106, 110–111}} FOSS is a term that can be used without particular bias towards either political approach.}} That is, anyone is [[free software license|freely licensed]] to use, copy, study, and change the software in any way, and the source code is openly shared so that people are encouraged to voluntarily improve the design of the software.<ref>{{cite web|last=Free Software Foundation|title=What is free software?|url=https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html|accessdate=14 December 2011}}</ref> This is in contrast to [[proprietary software]], where the software is under restrictive [[copyright]] and the source code is usually hidden from the users.
| |
|
| |
| The benefits of using FOSS can include decreasing software costs, increasing security and stability (especially in regard to [[malware]]), protecting [[privacy]], and giving users more control over their own hardware. Free, open-source operating systems such as [[Linux]] and descendents of [[BSD]] are widely utilized today, powering millions of [[server (computing)|servers]], [[desktop computer|desktops]], smartphones (e.g. [[Android (operating system)|Android]]), and other devices.{{sfn|Hatlestad|2005}}{{sfn|Claburn|2007}} [[Free software license]]s and [[open-source license]]s are used by [[List of open-source software packages|many software packages]].
| |
|
| |
| == History ==
| |
| {{Main|History of free and open-source software}}
| |
| {{Out of sync|History of free and open-source software|date=June 2015}}
| |
|
| |
| In the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, it was common for computer users to have the source code for all programs they used, and the permission and ability to modify it for their own use. [[Software]], including source code, was commonly shared by individuals who used computers. Most companies had a business model based on [[computer hardware|hardware]] sales, and provided or bundled the software free of charge.{{citation needed|date=July 2014}} Organizations of users and suppliers were formed to facilitate the exchange of software; see, for example, [[SHARE (computing)|SHARE]] and [[DECUS]].
| |
|
| |
| By the late 1960s, the prevailing business model around software was changing. A growing and evolving software industry was competing with the hardware manufacturer's bundled software products; rather than funding software development from hardware revenue, these new companies were selling software directly. Leased machines required software support while providing no revenue for software, and some customers able to better meet their own needs did not want the costs of software bundled with hardware product costs. In ''United States vs. [[IBM]]'', filed 17 January 1969, the government charged that bundled software was anticompetitive.{{sfn|Fisher|McKie|Mancke|1983}} While some software might always be free, there would be a growing amount of software that was for sale only. In the 1970s and early 1980s, some parts of the [[software industry]] began using technical measures (such as only distributing [[Executable|binary copies]] of [[computer programs]]) to prevent [[computer users]] from being able to use [[reverse engineering]] techniques to study and customize software they had paid for. In 1980, the copyright law was extended to computer programs in the [[United States]]<ref>[http://history.nih.gov/research/downloads/PL96-517.pdf Computer Software 1980 Copyright Act, Pub. L. No. 96-517, 94 Stat. 3015, 3028].</ref>—previously, computer programs could be considered ideas, procedures, methods, systems, and processes, which are not copyrightable.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.lib.purdue.edu/uco/CopyrightBasics/basics.html|title=Copyright Basics}}</ref>{{sfn|Weber|2009}}
| |
|
| |
| In 1983, [[Richard Stallman]], longtime member of the [[hacker (programmer subculture)|hacker]] community at the [[MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory]], announced the [[GNU project]], saying that he had become frustrated with the effects of the change in culture of the computer industry and its users.{{sfn|William|2002}} Software development for the [[GNU operating system]] began in January 1984, and the [[Free Software Foundation]] (FSF) was founded in October 1985. An article outlining the project and its goals was published in March 1985 titled the ''[[GNU Manifesto]]''. The manifesto included significant explanation of the GNU philosophy, ''[[Free Software Definition]]'' and "[[copyleft]]" ideas.
| |
|
| |
| The [[Linux kernel]], started by [[Linus Torvalds]], was released as freely modifiable source code in 1991. Initially, Linux was not released under a free or open-source software license. However, with version 0.12 in February 1992, he relicensed the project under the [[GNU General Public License]].<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/Historic/old-versions/RELNOTES-0.12 | title=Release notes for Linux kernel 0.12 | publisher=Kernel.org }}</ref> Much like Unix, Torvalds' kernel attracted the attention of volunteer programmers.{{citation needed|date=June 2015}}
| |
|
| |
| [[FreeBSD]] and [[NetBSD]] (both derived from [[386BSD]]) were released as free software when the [[USL v. BSDi]] lawsuit was settled out of court in 1993. [[OpenBSD]] [[Fork (software development)|forked]] from NetBSD in 1995. Also in 1995, The [[Apache HTTP Server]], commonly referred to as Apache, was released under the [[Apache License|Apache License 1.0]].
| |
|
| |
| In 1997, [[Eric S. Raymond|Eric Raymond]] published [[The Cathedral and the Bazaar]], a reflective analysis of the hacker community and free software principles. The paper received significant attention in early 1998, and was one factor in motivating [[Netscape Communications Corporation]] to release their popular [[Netscape Communicator]] Internet suite as [[free software]]. This code is today better known as [[Mozilla Firefox]] and [[Mozilla Thunderbird|Thunderbird]].
| |
|
| |
| Netscape's act prompted Raymond and others to look into how to bring the FSF's free software ideas and perceived benefits to the commercial software industry. They concluded that FSF's social activism was not appealing to companies like Netscape, and looked for a way to rebrand the free software movement to emphasize the business potential of sharing and collaborating on software source code. The new name they chose was "open source", and quickly [[Bruce Perens]], publisher [[Tim O'Reilly]], [[Linus Torvalds]], and others signed on to the rebranding. The [[Open Source Initiative]] was founded in February 1998 to encourage use of the new term and evangelize open-source principles.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://opensource.org/history |title=History of the OSI | publisher=Opensource.org}}</ref>
| |
|
| |
| While the Open Source Initiative sought to encourage the use of the new term and evangelize the principles it adhered to, commercial software vendors found themselves increasingly threatened by the concept of freely distributed software and universal access to an application's [[source code]]. A [[Microsoft]] executive publicly stated in 2001 that "open source is an intellectual property destroyer. I can't imagine something that could be worse than this for the software business and the intellectual-property business."{{sfn|Charny|2001}} This view perfectly summarizes the initial response to FOSS by some software corporations.{{citation needed|date=November 2012}} However, while FOSS has historically played a role outside of the mainstream of private software development, companies as large as [[Microsoft]] have begun to develop official open-source presences on the Internet. IBM, Oracle, Google and State Farm are just a few of the companies with a serious public stake in today's competitive [[open-source]] market. There has been a significant shift in the corporate philosophy concerning the development of free and open-source software (FOSS).{{sfn|Miller|Voas|Costello|2010|pages=14–16}}
| |
|
| |
| ==Controversy==
| |
| {{controversy section|date=June 2015}}
| |
| While copyright is the primary legal mechanism that FOSS authors use to ensure license compliance for their software, other mechanisms such as legislation, patents, and trademarks have implications as well. In response to legal issues with patents and the [[DMCA]], the Free Software Foundation released [[GPL version 3|version 3 of its GNU Public License]] in 2007 that explicitly addressed the DMCA and patent rights.
| |
|
| |
| After the development of the [[GNU GPLv3]], the FSF (as copyright holder of many pieces of the GNU system) updated many{{citation needed|date=November 2012}} of the GNU programs' licenses from GPLv2 to GPLv3. [[Apple, Inc.|Apple]], a user of GCC and a heavy user of both DRM and patents, switched the compiler in its [[Xcode]] IDE from GCC to [[Clang]], which is another FOSS compiler{{sfn|Brockmeier|2010}} but is under a [[permissive license]].<ref>{{cite web | url=http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#license | title=LLVM Developer Policy | publisher=LLVM | accessdate=November 19, 2012}}</ref> [[LWN.net|LWN]] speculated that Apple was motivated partly by a desire to avoid GPLv3.{{sfn|Brockmeier|2010}} The [[Samba (software)|Samba]] project also switched to GPLv3, which Apple replaced in their software suite with a closed-source, proprietary software alternative.{{sfn|Holwerda|2011}}
| |
|
| |
| Mergers have affected major open-source software. [[Sun Microsystems]] (Sun) acquired [[MySQL AB]], owner of the popular open-source [[MySQL]] database, in 2008.<ref name="sun buys mysql">{{cite web |title=Sun to Acquire MySQL|publisher=MySQL AB |url=http://mysql.com/news-and-events/sun-to-acquire-mysql.html |accessdate=2008-01-16 }}</ref>
| |
|
| |
| Oracle in turn purchased Sun in January, 2010, acquiring their copyrights, patents, and trademarks. Thus, Oracle became the owner of both the most popular proprietary database and the most popular open-source database. Oracle's attempts to commercialize the open-source MySQL database have raised concerns in the FOSS community.{{sfn|Thomson|2011}} Partly in response to uncertainty about the future of MySQL, the FOSS community [[Fork (software development)|forked]] the project into new [[database management system|database systems]] outside of Oracle's control. These include [[MariaDB]], [[Percona]], and [[Drizzle (database)|Drizzle]].{{sfn|Samson|2011}} All of these have distinct names; they are distinct projects and can not use the trademarked name MySQL.{{sfn|Nelson|2009}}
| |
|
| |
| In August, 2010, [[Oracle Corporation|Oracle]] sued [[Google]], claiming that its use of [[Java (software platform)|Java]] in [[Android (software)|Android]] infringed on Oracle's copyrights and patents. The [[Oracle v. Google]] case ended in May 2012, with the finding that Google did not infringe on Oracle's patents, and the trial judge ruled that the structure of the Java APIs used by Google was not copyrightable. The jury found that Google infringed a small number of copied files, but the parties [[stipulation (law)|stipulated]] that Google would pay no damages.{{sfn|Niccolai|2012}} Oracle has appealed to the [[Federal Circuit]], and Google has filed a [[cross-appeal]] on the literal copying claim.{{sfn|Jones|2012}}
| |
|
| |
| ==Naming==
| |
| {{Main|Alternative terms for free software}}
| |
| {{duplicates|section|dupe=Alternative terms for free software|date=June 2015}}
| |
|
| |
| ===Free software===
| |
| Richard Stallman's [[Free Software Definition]], adopted by the [[Free Software Foundation]] (FSF), defines [[free software]] as a matter of liberty, not price.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html |title=GNU.org |work=GNU.org |date=20 September 2011 |accessdate=23 October 2011}}</ref> The earliest known publication of the definition of his free software idea was in the February 1986 edition<ref name="bull6">{{cite web | url=https://www.gnu.org/bulletins/bull1.txt | title=GNU's Bulletin, Volume 1 Number 1, page 8 | publisher=GNU.org}}</ref> of the FSF's now-discontinued GNU's Bulletin publication. The canonical source for the document is in the philosophy section of the [[GNU Project]] website. As of April 2008, it is published there in 39 languages.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html#translations | title=The Free Software Definition – Translations of this page | publisher=GNU.org }}</ref>
| |
|
| |
| === Open source ===
| |
|
| |
| The [[Open Source Definition]] is used by the [[Open Source Initiative]] to determine whether a [[computer software|software]] license qualifies for the organization's insignia for [[open-source software]]. The definition was based on the [[Debian Free Software Guidelines]], written and adapted primarily by [[Bruce Perens]].{{sfn|Perens|1999}}<ref>{{cite web|url=http://opensource.org/docs/osd|title=''The Open Source Definition''}}, The Open Source Definition according to the Open Source Initiative</ref> Perens did not base his writing on the four freedoms of free software from the [[Free Software Foundation]], which were only later available on the web.{{cn|date=June 2015}} Perens later stated that he felt Eric Raymond's promotion of open source unfairly overshadowed the Free Software Foundation's efforts and reaffirmed his support for free software.{{cn|date=June 2015}}
| |
|
| |
| === FOSS ===
| |
|
| |
| The first known use of the phrase ''free open-source software'' on [[Usenet]] was in a posting on 18 March 1998, just a month after the term ''open source'' itself was coined.{{cn|date=June 2015}} In February 2002, F/OSS appeared on a [[Usenet]] newsgroup dedicated to [[Amiga]] [[computer games]].{{cn|date=June 2015}} In early 2002, [[MITRE]] used the term FOSS in what would later be their 2003 report "[[Use of Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) in the U.S. Department of Defense]]".{{cn|date=June 2015}}
| |
|
| |
| === FLOSS ===
| |
|
| |
| The acronym ''FLOSS'' was coined in 2001 by [[Rishab Aiyer Ghosh]] for ''free/libre/open-source software''.{{citation needed|date=June 2015}} Later that year, the [[European Commission]] (EC) used the phrase when they funded a study on the topic.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://flossproject.org/|title=Free/Libre and Open Source Software: Survey and Study}}</ref>
| |
|
| |
| Unlike [[Gratis versus Libre|libre]] software, which aimed to solve the ambiguity problem, FLOSS aimed to avoid taking sides in the debate over whether it was better to say "free software" or to say "open-source software".
| |
|
| |
| Proponents of the term point out that parts of the FLOSS acronym can be translated into other languages, with for example the ''F'' representing ''free'' (English) or ''frei'' (German), and the ''L'' representing ''libre'' (Spanish or French), ''livre'' (Portuguese), or ''libero'' (Italian), ''liber'' (Romanian) and so on. However, this term is not often used in official, non-English, documents, since the words in these languages for ''free as in freedom'' do not have the ambiguity problem of ''free'' in English.
| |
|
| |
| By the end of 2004, the FLOSS acronym had been used in official English documents issued by South Africa,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.naci.org.za/floss/index.html|title=Free/Libre and Open Source Software and Open Standards in South Africa: A Critical Issue for Addressing the Digital Divide|publisher=National Advisory Council on Innovation}}{{dead link|date=April 2014}}</ref> Spain,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/en/document/1637/470 |title=FLOSS deployment in Extremadura, Spain |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/20071216171951/http://ec.europa.eu:80/idabc/en/document/1637/470 |archivedate=December 16, 2007 }}</ref> and Brazil.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.softwarelivre.org/news/1727|title=Relatório da ONU aponta o Software Livre (FLOSS) como melhor}}{{dead link|date=April 2014}}</ref>
| |
|
| |
| == Licensing: copyleft vs permissive {{anchor|Licensing}} ==
| |
| {{further|Free software license|Open-source license}}
| |
|
| |
| Licenses that restrict mixing of works licensed under them with proprietary works, like [[GNU GPL 3]], are called [[copyleft]] licenses.{{citation needed|date=February 2015}}
| |
|
| |
| Licenses considered to have minimum restrictions of that kind, like [[Apache license]], are called [[permissive software license]]s.{{citation needed|date=February 2015}}
| |
|
| |
| == Dualism of FOSS ==
| |
|
| |
| The primary license difference between free software and [[open source]] is one of philosophy. According to the Free Software Foundation, "Nearly all open source software is free software. The two terms describe almost the same category of software, but they stand for views based on fundamentally different values."{{sfn|Stallman|n.d.}}
| |
|
| |
| Thus, the Open Source Initiative considers many free software licenses to also be open-source. These include the latest versions of the FSF's three main licenses: the GPL, the [[Lesser General Public License]] (LGPL), and the [[GNU Affero General Public License]] (AGPL).<ref>{{cite web|title=Licenses by Name|url=http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical|work=Open Source License|publisher=Open Source Initiative|accessdate=23 October 2011}}</ref>
| |
|
| |
| == Adoption ==
| |
| {{See also|Linux adoption|Free software#Adoption|Open-source software#Adoption}}
| |
|
| |
| === Adoption by governments ===
| |
| {{main|Adoption of free and open-source software by public institutions}}
| |
| {{quote box|width=25%|quote="We migrated key functions from Windows to Linux because we needed an operating system that was stable and reliable -- one that would give us in-house control. So if we needed to patch, adjust, or adapt, we could."|source=Official statement of the [[United Space Alliance]], which manages the computer systems for the [[International Space Station]] (ISS), regarding why they chose to switch from Windows to Linux on the ISS.{{sfn|Gunter|2013}}{{sfn|Bridgewater|2013}} }}
| |
|
| |
| The Government of [[Kerala]], India, announced its official support for free/open-source software in its State IT Policy of 2001,<ref>{{cite web| url=http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/apcity/unpan002950.pdf | title="Role of Open or Free Software", Section 15, page 20, of the State IT Policy (2001) of the Government of Kerala, copy available at the UN Public Administration Network (UNPAN) site}}</ref>{{discuss|State IT Policy of 2001}} which was formulated after the first-ever free software conference in India, ''Freedom First!'', held in July 2001 in Trivandrum, the capital of Kerala. In 2009, Government of Kerala started the International Centre for Free and Open Source Software ([[ICFOSS]]).<ref>http://www.keralait.org/blog/2011/02/25/chief-minister-inaugurates-icfoss-in-kerala/</ref> In March 2015 the Indian government announced a policy on adoption of open source software.{{sfn|Alawadhi|2015}}<ref>{{cite web | url=http://deity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/policy_on_adoption_of_oss.pdf | title=Policy on Adoption of Open Source Software for Government of India}}</ref>
| |
|
| |
| In the German [[City of Munich]], conversion of 15,000 PCs and laptops from Microsoft Windows-based operating systems to a [[Debian]]-based Linux environment called [[LiMux]] spanned the ten years of 2003 to 2013. After successful completion of the project, more than 80% of all computers were running Linux.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.muenchen.de/rathaus/Stadtverwaltung/Direktorium/LiMux/Zahlen_Fakten/Projektstatus.html |title=Landeshauptstadt München - Aktuelle Zahlen |language=German | publisher=Muenchen.de |date= |accessdate=2014-07-28}}</ref>
| |
|
| |
| In 2004, a law in [[Venezuela]] (Decree 3390) went into effect, mandating a two-year transition to open source in all public agencies. As of June 2009, this ambitious transition was still under way.<ref>{{es icon}} [http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2005/12/venezuela_open_source.html Venezuela Open Source]{{dead link|date=April 2014}}</ref><ref name="Venezuela">{{cite web|url = http://www.tsj.gov.ve/gaceta/Diciembre/281204/281204-38095-08.html|title = Publicado en la Gaceta oficial No 38.095 de fecha 28/ 12/ 2004 |accessdate =23 October 2011|last = Chavez|first = Hugo F.|authorlink = |date=December 2004}}</ref> [[Malaysia]] launched the "Malaysian Public Sector Open Source Software Program", saving millions on proprietary software licenses until 2008.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.oscc.org.my/ |title=OSCC.org |work=OSCC.org |accessdate=23 October 2011}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://knowledge.oscc.org.my/newsletters/first-quarterly-e-newsletter-jan-2009 |title=OSCC.org |accessdate=23 October 2011}}</ref>
| |
|
| |
| In 2005 the [[Government of Peru]] voted to adopt open source across all its bodies.{{sfn|Clarke|2005}} The 2002 response to Microsoft's critique is available online. In the preamble to the bill, the Peruvian government stressed that the choice was made to ensure that key pillars of [[democracy]] were safeguarded: "The basic principles which inspire the Bill are linked to the basic guarantees of a state of law."<ref name="NACI">{{cite web|url=http://www.prodefinity.de/docs/floss_v2_6_9.pdf |title=Free/Libre & Open Source Software and Open Standards in South Africa |accessdate=31 May 2008 |last=National Advisory Council on Innovation Open Software Working Group |authorlink= |date=July 2004 |format=PDF |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/20141222121451/http://www.prodefinity.de:80/docs/floss_v2_6_9.pdf |archivedate=December 22, 2014 }}</ref> In September, the [[Commonwealth of Massachusetts]] announced its formal adoption of the OpenDocument standard for all Commonwealth entities.{{sfn|Casson|Ryan|2006}}
| |
|
| |
| In 2006, the [[Federal government of Brazil|Brazilian government]] has simultaneously encouraged the distribution of cheap computers running Linux throughout its poorer communities by subsidizing their purchase with tax breaks.{{sfn|Casson|Ryan|2006}}
| |
|
| |
| In April 2008,<ref>{{Cite web|url = http://compgroups.net/comp.os.linux.advocacy/-news-ecuador-ahead-of-the-world-with/1773288|title = [News] Ecuador Ahead of the World with Democracy of Knowledge|date = |accessdate = |website = |publisher = |last = |first = }}</ref> [[Ecuador]] passed a similar law, Decree 1014, designed to migrate the public sector to Libre Software.<ref>{{es icon}} [http://www.estebanmendieta.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/Decreto_1014_software_libre_Ecuador.pdf Estebanmendieta.com], Decree 1014</ref>
| |
|
| |
| In February 2009, the [[United States]] [[White House]] moved its website to Linux servers using [[Drupal]] for content management.{{sfn|Vaughan-Nichols|2009}}
| |
|
| |
| In March, the [[National Gendarmerie|French Gendarmerie Nationale]] announced it will totally switch to [[Ubuntu (operating system)|Ubuntu]] by 2015. The Gendarmerie began its transition to open source software in 2005 when it replaced Microsoft Office with OpenOffice.org across the entire organization.{{sfn|Paul|2009}}
| |
|
| |
| In January 2010, the [[Government of Jordan]] announced a partnership with [[Ingres Corporation]] (now named Actian), a open source database management company based in the United States, to promote open-source software use, starting with university systems in Jordan.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.itp.net/578825-jordan-information-ministry-signs-deal-on-open-source |title=Jordan Information Ministry signs deal on open source - Government - News & Features |work=ITP.net |accessdate=2012-04-23}}</ref>
| |
|
| |
| In September 2014, the [[Uganda]] [[National Information Technology Authority (NITA-U)]] announced a call for feedback on an Open Source Strategy & Policy<ref>[http://ictau.ug/call-for-feedback-on-the-open-source-strategy-policy/ "Open Source Strategy & Policy" ]</ref> at a workshop in conjunction with the [[ICT Association of Uganda (ICTAU)]]
| |
|
| |
| == FOSS and Benkler's new economy ==
| |
| According to [[Yochai Benkler]], Jack N. and Lillian R. Berkman Professor for Entrepreneurial Legal Studies at [[Harvard Law School]], free software is the most visible part of a new economy of [[commons-based peer production]] of information, knowledge, and culture. As examples, he cites a variety of FOSS projects, including both free software and open-source.{{sfn|Benkler|2003}}
| |
|
| |
| This new economy is already under development. To commercialize FOSS, many companies move towards advertisement-supported software. In such a model, the only way to increase revenue is to make the advertisement more valuable. [[Facebook]] has recently been criticized for using novel methods of tracking users to accomplish this.{{sfn|ElBoghdady|Tsukayama|2011}}
| |
|
| |
| This new economy has alternatives. Apple's [[App Store (iOS)|App Stores]] have proven very popular with both users and developers. The Free Software Foundation considers Apple's App Stores to be incompatible with its GPL and complained that Apple was infringing on the GPL with its [[iTunes]] terms of use. Rather than change those terms to comply with the GPL, Apple removed the GPL-licensed products from its App Stores.{{sfn|Vaughan-Nichols|2011}}
| |
|
| |
|
| ==See also== | | ==See also== |
