@cwebber I mean, iOS still lets you use, at the very least, LGPL, right?
@cwebber Pretty sure it did and so apps such as VLC were published
@cwebber yeah, I think the same is true for others such as Firefox https://itunes.apple.com/app/vlc-for-mobile/id650377962?mt=8
@espectalll Firefox is under the MPL
@espectalll well, technically "tri-licensed" but effectively MPL
@cwebber Please check your knowledge before spreading potential misinformation and just try to do your best
@espectalll Well, MPL != LGPL. And looks like maybe LGPL v2.1+ is feasible on iOS, though maybe not LGPLv3+ (because of anti-tivotization provisions)?
It seems that with LGPL2.1+ you can use it but maybe not for proprietary code linking to the LGPL2.1 ... iirc this is in dispute though.
@espectalll point is, "Don't release that library under the LGPL!" is frequently a cry from iOS devs and basically I don't care
@cwebber Meh, it's just your typical anti-copyleft fear - don't worry there, they can still use it just fine.
@espectalll Yes, at any rate, "I'm not going to not release my code under a copyleft license because an awful OS maybe-can't-run-it" is not a compelling reason for me.
@cwebber Yeah, sure, but just keep in mind it's not as bad as it may seem at first. At all.
@cwebber There's still Qt-based apps on the iOS store (such as Spotify!) and that's LGPLv3 so I don't think there's any problem there
So, this is where dual-licensing *might* come in: In principle, authors of software licensed under otherwise iOS-incompatible terms are perfectly entitled *also* to put it on Apple's store so long as that store will accept it. It's a separate, parallel deal.
They just can't do that with someone else's code.
Whether and how often the code belongs completely to whomever wants to put it on the store, I don't know.