GPL and the Mac App Store

Evan Schoenberg, M.D. evan.s at
Tue Jan 11 23:54:03 UTC 2011

On Jan 11, 2011, at 5:51 PM, Christopher Forsythe wrote:

> The problem is that the work that was done didn't produce anything.
> The whole thing was supposed to be a big wrapper around objc
> libraries, which turned into a "oh hey let's just use this other linux
> library!" thing.

I think that's unfair.  Reimplementing the protocols themselves is not a good use of human resources, and this wasn't - as far as I recall - an intention of the project.


> Ofri and you did put in a lot of work, but in the end it wasn't a lot
> of work that produced very much in a way of making the project viable,
> which is essentially why the project failed.

> On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 5:43 PM, David Smith < at> wrote:
>> That's not true. Ofri (and to a lesser extent me) wrote quite a bit of
>> code, and had some interesting stuff working. The project stopped
>> because Ofri burned out from working too hard on it for a whole year.
>>        David
>> On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 3:39 PM, Christopher Forsythe <chris at> wrote:
>>> Chatkit was indeed a separate short lived project. Essentially it
>>> started off with a lot of planning, and then some people wanted to
>>> depend on pre-existing libraries. Not a lot of real work was done,
>>> which is why the project eventually stopped.
>>> Chris
>>> On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 5:32 PM, BJ Homer <bjhomer at> wrote:
>>>> </lurk>
>>>> While we're talking about crazy ideas, I know there was a project called
>>>> ChatKit a while ago. As I understood it, it was essentially going to
>>>> implement the various IM protocols in Obj-C and provide a simple Obj-C API
>>>> for them. (I believe Adium developers were involved in it, so please correct
>>>> me if I'm wrong.) If that's the case… well, would anyone have interest in
>>>> resurrecting that project? If libpurple is the dependency dependency that
>>>> prohibits inclusion in the Mac App Store, is it worth investigating
>>>> replacing it?
>>>> I acknowledge that this wouldn't be a quick solution; petitioning Apple to
>>>> make the App Store licensing terms GPL-compatible in the meantime is not a
>>>> bad option. But if that doesn't happen… well, how badly do people want Adium
>>>> to be on the Mac App Store? If a framework like ChatKit were the only
>>>> option, is there enough interest in the Mac App Store to explore that option
>>>> again?
>>>> I'd be willing to help. I've been needing a good open source project to work
>>>> on for a while.
>>>> -BJ
>>>> On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Zachary West <zacw at> wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 18:08, Christopher Forsythe <chris at>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 5:03 PM, Stephen Holt <sholt at> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jan 11, 2011, at 2:59 PM, Christopher Forsythe wrote:
>>>>>>>> Can any of the libraries be taken out of adium in order to reduce this
>>>>>>>> number?
>>>>>>> libglib is the big one, and no - libpurple depends on libglib.
>>>>>> That's fine, I'd just need to start preparing to find all of these
>>>>>> people and making a list.
>>>>>> Do we know what kind of permission we'd need to ask for? Is something
>>>>>> like this adequate? "hey, we want make adium easier to download for
>>>>>> users, and we have to do x, y, and z to do that. We need your
>>>>>> permission in order to do that. Is it ok?"
>>>>>> Is the intention to put Adium in the store for free or for sale?
>>>>> This isn't going to happen, there's a huge amount of people who have
>>>>> contributed to the projects. If even only one of them isn't contactable or
>>>>> reachable it's gone. We basically need to relicense a core set of GPL
>>>>> libraries and that isn't going to happen.
>>>>> It would be free.
>>>>> I'm going to write a blogpost and hopefully have our users spam Apple with
>>>>> complaints. Not much more we can do.
>>>>> Zac

More information about the devel mailing list