If nothing else, the DRM system built into iOS devices makes this impossible to satisfy. That freedom isn't being granted wholesale as required, it's being metered by Apple. They can take it away at any time if they want to, because in order to run the program your device MUST contact them and retrieve decryption keys specific to that app and that account holder. That's not freedom, its permission on a fine-grained basis
> The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1).
Releasing the source MAYBE complies with this, changing the program tends to require the code anyway, but its a grey area to me. Have I actually enabled recipients to change it if they can't run that code without Apple's permission? I guess, in a way, but it's a bad deal for them for technical reasons
> The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
Sure I can hand out binary copies if I want (that can't run anywhere but jailbroken or preauthorized devices during beta testing), but someone receiving a copy through the App Store can't. The program is encrypted and can only be decrypted with a key held by Apple
> The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3)
Same deal as previous point to some degree, they can modify the code, but then what? Grey area? Technicality? Not an ideal vision of freedom even if technically compliant.
Why doesn't distributing the source satisfy all of these? Can't users do anything they want with the program itself? Couldn't jailbreaking (or paying $99/yr for the developer program) to run your own apps be considered the same as any other step you need to run programs on other platforms? On Windows you need to put it in an .exe file, on iOS you need to fork over $99.
In short, because the binary is also covered by the GPL and must be redistributable and usable, and nothing that comes from the App Store meets those requirements for anyone except the original buyer/downloader, because they are all encrypted.
If Apple's platform merely refused to run unsigned binaries (like Tivo), it may be kosher to ship GPLv2 (but not v3 for this exact reason), but they're encrypted too, which takes away those rights OUTSIDE the platform as well.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
> The freedom to run the program, for any purpose
If nothing else, the DRM system built into iOS devices makes this impossible to satisfy. That freedom isn't being granted wholesale as required, it's being metered by Apple. They can take it away at any time if they want to, because in order to run the program your device MUST contact them and retrieve decryption keys specific to that app and that account holder. That's not freedom, its permission on a fine-grained basis
> The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1).
Releasing the source MAYBE complies with this, changing the program tends to require the code anyway, but its a grey area to me. Have I actually enabled recipients to change it if they can't run that code without Apple's permission? I guess, in a way, but it's a bad deal for them for technical reasons
> The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
Sure I can hand out binary copies if I want (that can't run anywhere but jailbroken or preauthorized devices during beta testing), but someone receiving a copy through the App Store can't. The program is encrypted and can only be decrypted with a key held by Apple
> The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3)
Same deal as previous point to some degree, they can modify the code, but then what? Grey area? Technicality? Not an ideal vision of freedom even if technically compliant.