Is that really true? As I understand it, anyone can build and put an app on their phone using Xcode, without needing any permissions from Apple. So if an app on the store is LGPL'd, the publisher can make the source available and I can build it and place it on my own phone.
(It's not the main point behind your question, but even if you're sideloading through Xcode, you need an Apple ID. AFAIK, jailbreaking remains the only option to install an app without getting Apple's permission.)
In response to your question: Yes. But, again, the same was true of LGPL version 2.1.
Ah, I didn't know that. I had heard that Apple had relaxed their restrictions a little, but have not tried it myself yet.
When you speak of an Apple ID, do you mean a free one, or the $99 publish-to-the-appstore type? The difference doesn't matter to the LGPL question, of course...
There's some good discussion about LGPL and app stores at https://lwn.net/Articles/526355/ - the comments give a good explanation about why you could get away with a LGPL app, even though there's no free way to re-link the program.
Now, if you could use Xcode to install an app on your own phone, without any other account or gatekeeper, then presumably (I guess), GPL'd apps could also be allowed on the store?
A lot of apps can't effectively be side-loaded and retain their features. Most of these problems stem from not having the real developer's certificates to sign the app with.
For example, you can't get the source for an AppStore app, side-load it, and have it get notifications meant for the original app.
The same applies to IAP purchases made with the original app (they won't be available to the re-created app).
So, in the very least, even if, generally, LGPL with side-loading is ok, there are definitely some apps where it would still be not.
Good point about the notifications & IAPs, I hadn't thought of that.
They make the licensing even murkier - you could envisage a situation where even if you had the app source code and the ability to build and install the app on a device, the app is worthless because a key feature depends upon secret keys that you have no access to. That's getting closer and closer to tivo-isation.
> When you speak of an Apple ID, do you mean a free one, or the $99 publish-to-the-appstore type?
I don't know. Is that something you're interested in? Why not look into it?
> Now, if you could use Xcode to install an app on your own phone, without any other account or gatekeeper, then presumably (I guess), GPL'd apps could also be allowed on the store?
Again, the problems with the App Store are specific to the terms, conditions, and restrictions that Apple chooses for it. Whether or not you can side load your own apps using Xcode doesn't change that. Problematic App Store terms are still problematic. "Yes, you can build an app under <license> for your own device in Xcode" does not automatically mean, "Yes, you can distribute apps with <license> on the App Store."
