open cpn on an ipad

[bdbcat]

AuroraGH...

Sorry, I was not clear on my point. Which is this:

Speaking from the perspective of a user, not a developer, it seems to be against the Apple TOS for an end user to give, transfer, or sell a downloaded application to a third party. I'm no iOS expert, so there may be some jail-breaking way around this, physically. There also seem to be some exceptions like 5 family members, etc.

This is a key, but subtle point of GPLv2. No matter how you got the app, you need to be able to give it away to your friend, and it should run for them without additional restrictions.. The availability of source code is irrelevant to this requirement.

The FSF take on this:
FSF: Apple’s iTunes Store terms of service at odds with GPL | Ars Technica

As you can read, FSF consider Apple as being in violation of GPLv2 if the store distributes a GPLv2 licensed app. Not the developer. And we have seen Apple remove some GPLv2 licensed apps from the store. Not all, by any means, though.

Of course, many other Open Source licenses do not contain this clause.

I hope I have clarified my position re GPLv2 and OpenCPN.

And then there is the technical discussion about wxWidgets on iOS. If we were able to dodge the licensing issues, a viable approach to OCPN on iOS would use Qt as middleware, The Qt port of wxWidgets is not too bad....

Thanks for your comments
Dave

[AuroraGH]

Originally Posted by bdbcat

AuroraGH...

Sorry, I was not clear on my point. Which is this:

Speaking from the perspective of a user, not a developer, it seems to be against the Apple TOS for an end user to give, transfer, or sell a downloaded application to a third party.

You want to give away a program you got? Fine - I'm gonna give you this great loyalty card app I use every day. That's it. I just gave you a copy of the program.

"Wait!" I hear you saying. "You didn't give me the program - you gave me a link to a place I can download it for myself".

Which is true. But you didn't give me the OpenCPN code either. You pass out links to github repos and a website with documentation. So I really don't see the difference. The point is - there's a way for me to give you a way to get it for yourself for free which is semantically no different from me burning you a floppy disk or a CD - only we have the internet now and we don't do that anymore.

Originally Posted by bdbcat

No matter how you got the app, you need to be able to give it away to your friend, and it should run for them without additional restrictions.

And I just gave you a copy of StoreCards.

Originally Posted by bdbcat

And then there is the technical discussion about wxWidgets on iOS. If we were able to dodge the licensing issues, a viable approach to OCPN on iOS would use Qt as middleware, The Qt port of wxWidgets is not too bad....

I disagree with that as well. What would be really great is if the core of OpenCPN was built like a server with models and controllers (in C++ would be just fine) and then each platform enthusiast could build their own UI atop it. For instance, on any Macbook these days - having zoom in/out buttons in the toolbar is pointless as pinch to zoom on trackpads is now a standard platform feature - one that hasn't made it into WX. There is also the MapView which is the same on iPad and Mac now that works off of map tiles so being able to cough up map tiles in response to web requests makes map rendering and manipulation easy in a standard way.

I'm kind of aware that my online personality can come off as abrasive and even rude and I struggle with that. I want you to know I think OpenCPN is a hell of an achievement and if I sound confrontational I don't mean to be. Just trying to get my viewpoint across and I'm a little frustrated at how hard it is to adapt it to my platforms of choice.

[bdbcat]

AuroraGH...

I appreciate your comments. I really do.

But the devil is in the details, as they say. To me, giving away a link is not the same as giving away a verbatim copy of the app. I agree that some of the language of GPLv2 harks back to floppy disk days. But the wording requires that you give me a copy of the app you have in your possession, along with information on where I can get the source code if I want.

You are of course free to give me a GPLv2 program, because you do not impose additional restrictions on me. But a link to iTunes means that in order to get the app, Apple will impose incompatible restrictions on me.

That may be a moot point, anyway. The chain must be preserved. If GPLv2 is to be satisfied, at no point can additional restrictions be placed on the user. If the app was licensed GPLv2, it wouldn't matter if I got the link or the app on a thumbdrive.. The Apple TOS says, for example, that I cannot modify, decompile, reverse engineer, etc. the app in any way. Yet GPLv2 requires that the distributor of the app not impose additional restrictions like these. So whoever gave me the app cannot meet both Apple's terms and GPLv2 terms at the same time.

As Sean said above, it is also a philosophical argument, reduced to specific policy. Apple means to "manage" your iOS device remotely, mostly in the interest of increased stability. These are phones, after all, and we don't know how to deal with crashing phones. It's a reasonable business goal. But is a goal that works against the aims of FSF and GPLv2, in which the user takes full responsibility for their compute environment.


Alternatively, this may be viewed as a simple iTunes issue. If there were a way to simply load apps on iOS devices without iTunes, then there would be no issues. And probably no market, either....

Politics, religion, and now software licensing. All contentious subjects...

Technical:
Of course, starting OCPN development from scratch today would use an entirely different model. Who knew anything about mobile apps or tiled geography servers when O was originally concocted?

Thanks for the discussion...
Dave

[AuroraGH]

Originally Posted by bdbcat

If there were a way to simply load apps on iOS devices without iTunes, then there would be no issues.

You can get a dev account and free dev tools and build your own from available source for free. Which is pretty much the original GPL distribution model for everything Stallman ever wrote.

I really think its BS semantics. There are no actual real restrictions on providing free software on iOS devices. I do not see any incompatibility or conflict in any practical sense. I build applications on iOS, Android, Macs, and Linux (no Windows - I only have so much patience) for my personal use all the time. I can give them away as source code (which is pretty much all Stallman ever did - give you source code via anonymous ftp and you had to build it yourself) or put them in the app store for free. It makes no practical difference.

This isn't any different today. I suppose it should come as no surprise that I'm not a fan of GPL. I think if you're going to give something away - really give it away. Like about half the code in OpenCPN already - the stuff borrowed from the GIS community that was made freely available for any use at all. I like MIT style licenses.

I don't like restrictions, strings or complications and I strongly dislike politics mixed in with my software.

[bdbcat]

AuroraGH...

or put them in the app store for free.  It makes no practical difference.

Ah, but it might. If the code you build and generously put on the store for free includes any GPLv2 licensed code at all (libary, etc.), then Apple will be violating GPLv2 by distributing it. You, on the other hand, have followed GPLv2 to the letter.

If you like no restrictions at all, you should be a big fan of GPL.

Just sayin', not preaching....

Dave

[AuroraGH]

Originally Posted by bdbcat

AuroraGH...

or put them in the app store for free.  It makes no practical difference.

Ah, but it might. If the code you build and generously put on the store for free includes any GPLv2 licensed code at all (libary, etc.), then Apple will be violating GPLv2 by distributing it. You, on the other hand, have followed GPLv2 to the letter.

If you like no restrictions at all, you should be a big fan of GPL.

Just sayin', not preaching....

No. It doesn't. And it seems its the GPL that's telling me what I can and can't do with software on my computer. Apple is no more closed than Microsoft, really.

All the GPL is doing is reducing the number of people that can use the software. And I guess this is where we part ways. I can't use OpenCPN on my devices and there's no point in helping work on it, contributing to it, or even running it under these conditions.

Good luck. I'll have to look elsewhere for truly free software. There's nothing free about a license that tells me I can't distribute software I write on a platform I want to put it out on.

[seandepagnier]

Originally Posted by AuroraGH

You can get a dev account and free dev tools and build your own from available source for free. Which is pretty much the original GPL distribution model for everything Stallman ever wrote.

Ok then.. what is stopping you from building opencpn for your ipad then? As mentioned it is already theoretically possible via wxQT and the pinch gestures already implemented into wx for android should work as well.

So it's just a matter of building it, and distributing it not using the apple store.

All the GPL is doing is reducing the number of people that can use the

It may reduce certain people, but it is not at random, it is an important filter. The most important users will insist on GPL.

Good luck. I'll have to look elsewhere for truly free software. There's nothing free about a license that tells me I can't distribute software I write on a platform I want to put it out on.

I think you don't really understand what is free software. GPL insists on free software, so when some other license like apple's attempts to restrict this, then it is not allowed.

[CarCode]

Originally Posted by boat_alexandra

As mentioned it is already theoretically possible via wxQT and the pinch gestures already implemented into wx for android should work as well.

Has any of you guys ever worked with a Mac? The pinch gesture works here for zooming in and out with OS X El Capitan but not smooth and sadly in reversed sense. Moving 2 fingers together makes the chart greater and spread them makes the chart smaller.
Indeed the spaghetti code of OpenCPN needs a complete rework. The concept is outdated.

Gerhard

[Nolan]

iNavX really good app for IPad but it cost 50$.

https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/inav...69038256552181

[Baikal]

Complete ECS Transas iSailor the best there is in istore
https://itunes.apple.com/app/transas...or/id398456162

[pcmm]

Originally Posted by Nolan

iNavX really good app for IPad but it cost 50$.

https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/inav...69038256552181

I would avoid InavX. It doesnt support ENC charts. Rastor charts take up a huge amount of space on your Ipad. And InavX forces you to purchase the Noaa charts from their source when they are free directly from NOAA! they say the charts are free but you must purchase them. for Ipad stick with SeaIQ. its a bit slower than some other apps, but the feature set is great!

[CarCode]

There are several apps for iOS and even for free like PolarView MX:
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/pola...mx/id513635085

Gerhard

[AuroraGH]

Originally Posted by boat_alexandra

Ok then.. what is stopping you from building opencpn for your ipad then? As mentioned it is already theoretically possible via wxQT and the pinch gestures already implemented into wx for android should work as well.

bdbcat states that to comply I just have to be able to give away the software anyway I like.

I like putting stuff in the app store where it is easy for the most people to use - technical or not. That's my choice of distribution. I could, I suppose, put it in the cydian store but that requires jailbreaking and jailbreaking makes devices insecure and security matters to a lot of users.

Originally Posted by boat_alexandra

So it's just a matter of building it, and distributing it not using the apple store.


It may reduce certain people, but it is not at random, it is an important filter. The most important users will insist on GPL.

Thanks for telling me I'm not important.

I would also point out there is NOTHING at all keeping me from putting OpenCPN into the Mac app store for $50 a copy. Or free. It has similar terms to the iOS app store.

But that would be a dick move and disrespectful.

Originally Posted by boat_alexandra

I think you don't really understand what is free software. GPL insists on free software, so when some other license like apple's attempts to restrict this, then it is not allowed.

That's pretty rich coming from an advocate of a project that took MIT software (truly "free" as in beer) and relicensed it under the more restrictive GPL.

There is no point at all in contributing code to a GPL project when its authors insist I cannot give it away using the standard software distribution mechanism because of some theoretical "conflict" in philosophy they have with a particular company. How free is that?

I mean, I could. But 1) what's in it for me? and 2) I don't want to disrespect the authors. If they want to do it like that - fine I won't work with it.

I do agree with Gerhard about the internal structure. It needs a rewrite and we could probably eliminate this whole mess via an architecture that acts something like MapServer where OpenCPN becomes just a server and we write native clients. Then you could run OpenCPN server on a raspberry pi and just serve data over http using SignalK and maptile server format and leave the rendering to the client - which could be written differently for each platform.

OpenCPN's UI isn't very complicated. I could rebuild it in native Cocoa in a few days. But I'd have to do a lot of refactoring to separate the core model from the WxViews and I'm not entirely sure its worth the effort vs a clean start.

[seandepagnier]

That's pretty rich coming from an advocate of a project that took MIT software (truly "free" as in beer) and relicensed it under the more restrictive GPL.

The code under the MIT or BSD license is still valid for that license. You can take out just these pieces and use them under their MIT license if you like.

I do agree with Gerhard about the internal structure. It needs a rewrite and we could probably eliminate this whole mess via an architecture that acts something like MapServer where OpenCPN becomes just a server and we write native clients. Then you could run OpenCPN server on a raspberry pi and just serve data over http using SignalK and maptile server format and leave the rendering to the client - which could be written differently for each platform.

This might be interesting, but it isn't going to be very efficient at rendering for several reasons unless a different format from standard maptiles is invented. Please prove me wrong.

OpenCPN's UI isn't very complicated. I could rebuild it in native Cocoa in a few days. But I'd have to do a lot of refactoring to separate the core model from the WxViews and I'm not entirely sure its worth the effort vs a clean start.

Well please go ahead and fork and refactor, or just write your own program from scratch if you don't want to use GPL.

A common goal that you could consider is the refactor to make opencpn work without using wxwidgets at all. This would potentially benefit a lot more than only ios and I'm sure others would collaborate.

[seandepagnier]

Originally Posted by AuroraGH

bdbcat states that to comply I just have to be able to give away the software anyway I like.

I like putting stuff in the app store where it is easy for the most people to use - technical or not. That's my choice of distribution. I could, I suppose, put it in the cydian store but that requires jailbreaking and jailbreaking makes devices insecure and security matters to a lot of users.

I think it would be quite secure to jailbreak just to install OpenCPN and many users would appreciate this solution. If I am wrong and it really renders you vulnerable than I think it's best to install linux on your ipad and use it that way.

Basically, what I can see if someone needs to build opencpn for ipad using wxqt and then produce instructions for how to install it via jailbreaking.

If this is working, and proven to be reliable, then maybe we can find a way to compromise on license terms, who knows, but for now it's virtually pointless to debate it when there is no proven working application (it's only theoretically possible)

So for now we can all wait until someone can build it and run on iOS!