Slashdot Mirror
The Ethics of Selling GPLed Software For the iPhone
SeanCier writes "We're a small (two-person) iPhone app developer whose first game has recently been released in the App store. In the process, we've inadvertently stepped in it, bringing up a question of the GPL and free software ethics that I'm hoping the Slashdot community can help us clear up, one way or the other. XPilot, a unique and groundbreaking UNIX-based game from the early/mid nineties, was a classic in its day, but was forgotten and has been dead for years, both in terms of use and development. My college roommate and I were addicted to it at the time, even running game servers and publishing custom maps. As it's fully open source (GPLv2), and the iPhone has well over twice the graphics power of the SGI workstations we'd used in college, we decided it was a moral imperative to port it to our cellphones. In the process, we hoped, we could breathe life back into this forgotten classic (not to mention turning a years-old joke into reality). We did so, and the result was more playable than we'd hoped, despite the physical limitations of the phone. We priced it at $2.99 on the App store (we don't expect it to become the Next Big Thing, but hoped to recoup our costs — such as server charges and Apple's annual $99 developer fee), released the source on our web page, then enthusiastically tracked down every member of the original community we could find to let them know of the hoped-for renaissance. Which is where things got muddy. After it hit the App store, one of the original developers of XPilot told us he feels adamantly that we're betraying the spirit of the GPL by charging for it."
Read on for the rest of Sean's question.
"That left us in a terrible spot. We'd thought we were contributing to the community and the legacy of this game by reviving it, not stealing from them by charging for it — and we didn't think $2.99 was unreasonable (and, again, the source is available for free from our page). It never occurred to us that one of the original creators would feel that we were betraying their contribution. We've discussed the philosophical fine points of free-as-in-speech vs. free-as-in-beer with him, and have suggested a number of remedies — such as reducing the price (it's now $1.99), profit-sharing with previous contributors, making the game free at some point in the future (once we'd at least recouped our costs), or going 'freemium' (offering a fully-functional free version plus a paid version with enhancements we added ourselves, with both GPLed of course). But in each case, the bottom line is that this developer feels the app should be free-as-in-beer period, and anything less is a sleazy betrayal of anybody that made contributions under that license. Which is a shame, because we deeply respect his work on this game and would love for him to be on board with the port — but at the same time this was months worth of work and we honestly believe we're going about this in a reasonable way.
Obviously, one of us has a non-mainstream understanding of open source ethos, but it's become clear we can't come to a consensus on which of us it is, and whether the 'spirit of the GPL' should allow selling GPLed software (especially when one wasn't the original creator of the software, but a more recent contributor). The only way to determine that, it seems, is to poll the open source community itself.
We're determined to do the right thing by the GPL and the community, and we'd like to hear opinions on this. Remember, we're not talking about whether it's practical to base a business on GPLed software, nor the best business model for doing so, and certainly not whether the source must be distributed for free (obviously it must be), but just whether charging for the binary version of an enhanced/ported version of a GPLed app (while releasing the corresponding source for free) is an ethically defensible thing to do."
Obviously, one of us has a non-mainstream understanding of open source ethos, but it's become clear we can't come to a consensus on which of us it is, and whether the 'spirit of the GPL' should allow selling GPLed software (especially when one wasn't the original creator of the software, but a more recent contributor). The only way to determine that, it seems, is to poll the open source community itself.
We're determined to do the right thing by the GPL and the community, and we'd like to hear opinions on this. Remember, we're not talking about whether it's practical to base a business on GPLed software, nor the best business model for doing so, and certainly not whether the source must be distributed for free (obviously it must be), but just whether charging for the binary version of an enhanced/ported version of a GPLed app (while releasing the corresponding source for free) is an ethically defensible thing to do."
Yes it's fine
This is a retarded issue, there is nothing in the GPL to prohibit charging whatever the fuck you want as as long as the code freely available.
There's no "spirit of the GPL", that is just a made up construct, like saying the Constitution is "living document".
It either violates the terms or it doesn't.
Next.
You're not doing anything wrong. You've not in violation of any licenses. By choosing the GPL, the pissy developer:
1) Already answered the question of whether people can charge for it (the answer: yes)
2) Gave up control of the project; you could just call yours a "fork" and he'd have to shut up anyway
So, in short, go tell him to piss up a rope.
Comment of the year
The GPL does not say you can't charge for software. You can charge. Someone else can take your source code and give it away for free. All is fair.
Since your UID is smaller than mine, I can only conclude that you're trolling. -s20451 (410424)
It's fine to charge for a product that is based on a GPL'd project as long as you are contributing back to GPL'd project. That is what the GPL is about. Nothing says you can't make money. Redhat does it every day and no one complains. And CentOS came along and created a free version of Redhat but it really didn't impact Redhats business model.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
There is nothing wrong with charging for GPLed software as long as you provide the source code for free to anyone who asks.
The GPL is about keeping the source code available or to put it another way: Free speech, not necessarily free beer!
Well then the original developers picked the wrong license, didn't they? It's not your fault.
Ask RMS and his acolytes about it. After they ask for your penance for using the evil Apple Store, I'm sure they'd rather you donate the $ to FSF, than to the original developers. :)
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
You can charge for the software.
If the original developers have problem with that they should have used a different license.
I don't think there is any moral problem here.
Those people are idiots!!!
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney
Does the GPL allow me to charge a fee for downloading the program from my site?
Yes. You can charge any fee you wish for distributing a copy of the program. If you distribute binaries by download, you must provide âoeequivalent accessâ to download the sourceâ"therefore, the fee to download source may not be greater than the fee to download the binary.
You did everything right, and nothing wrong. I am more thinking that the people who are angry are jealous that they did not think of it first.
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
Sounds like an OSS zealot who can't see the wood for the tree's tbh. iirk GPL allows you to charge reasonable distribution/medium costs as long as you keep the source freely available, which you are.
Tell him he can pay for the Apple Dev fee, and bandwidth then you'll gladly let it go totally free. Otherwise he should stfu and appreciate your hard work and time doing the port, and your full compliance with the GPL.
It isn't possible to distribute the source code with the app purchase, making the source code available on your website satisfies the GPL. If you wanted to go a little extra you could put a link to the source code in the credits.
Lots of "GPL" software is sold.
Presumably you spent time on making it work on the iPhone in the first place, why not be paid for that.
Also, if this was against the "spirit" of GPL, why are people not complaining about commercial distributions?
I found a fast warez site: http://warez.it.kth.se
There isn't an 'F' in the first one for a reason. You're doing absolutely nothing wrong.
The original developer is full of it, GPL has nothing to do with selling a product and everything to do with the open-sourcing of it's code.
It was my understanding that the spirit of the GPL was to enable sharing of information and knowledge. First, did you use code form the original? If so, you may need to release the code to the public as part of the GPL. Other than that, there is nothing wrong with selling it, but if everyone can compile their own version, the usual outcome is a zero cost. In this case, there is a barrier to entry, so I don't think the economics will work the same here. Free as in speech, not beer.
Sour grapes are what that man is feeling. He wishes either that he could have done what you have done or that is probably hoping you ask if you can mollify him by giving him some money. No matter the case, he is wrong. There's absolutely nothing wrong with making money from GPL'd software... but you have to offer up the code. So:
Offer up the code. Where can I download it? Your code, BTW. The Apple app code.
one of the original developers of XPilot told us he feels adamantly that we're betraying the spirit of the GPL by charging for it
No, you're not.
You're betraying what he feels is the spirit of the GPL. However, the GPL was specifically designed to allow for such charging. If he didn't like the GPL, he and the other "original" developers should have chosen a different license. The fact that he didn't understand what rights he was transferring by choosing the GPL is his own fault.
I appreciate that this developer is put off by your fees. However, he is free to take your efforts (the GPL'd code you've published) and release the application for free.
I think you've gone above and beyond by hearing the guy out and expressing your concerns. However, you're following the rules HE set out.
Why was this posted on Slashdot anyway. They may call programmers rude, but this is clearly a case to RTFM before asking.
If you don't want other people making money from your work, then you shouldn't release anything under the GPL. That's easy...
But is it legal to release any iPhone application under the GPL? Apple puts restrictions on what you can do with the application once you've downloaded it - i.e. you're not allowed to redistribute or modify it. Unless all of the copyright holders of the GPL code give their permission to release it under these more restrictive terms, that be a violation wouldn't it?
Back in 2006, the UK Government confiscated Firefox CDs from a company that was selling them. A UK Trading standards officer contacted the Mozilla Foundation informing them of this. When Mozilla's rep replied saying it wasn't a violation of Mozilla's copyright the officer flipped their lid and couldn't understand how this could possibly be. Some people just don't get it.
Of course you can charge for it... you put time and work into it and you deserve to get paid for it. You haven't broken the spirit of the GPL or any of that crap. Methinks this dev is simply unhappy that you are making some money off of his work, even though you put some work into it to. I guess this is where we see the divide between open source and free software.
You spent months developing this game? Of course it's okay to charge for it!
Only in the IT industry have we decided that our work should be free. Why we developers think it's "normal" to not be paid for our work, is completely beyond me. I wonder what the reaction would be from, say, an engineer who is told he shouldn't charge for his work, or any other worker?
I think that section is more to cover "transport fees". That is, the fee to actually download it, not to buy it.
Besides, they're not downloading it from his site, they're downloading it from Apple's site. So Apple's 30% cut is covered by this section, not the developer's 70%.
I personally am quite certain this situation is equivalent to the one that brought about the GPLv3. In this case, the source is given out but it's useless to most people in terms of recreating the actual binaries (because you cannot make the binaries runnable, only Apple can, by signing them).
So it would be (I would thing) unethical in RMS' mind and therefore presumably against the spirit of the GPL. It's quite likely even giving away the program on the app store would also be unethical, because you still cannot modify it, recompile it and run it unless you pay Apple $100.
Of course, this code isn't GPLv3, it's GPLv2, so these guys likely aren't in any legal trouble, they're within the letter of the rules, just outside the spirit of them.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
Nope, just one geek.
1000 times.
If the original developer wants the iPhone app to be free, he can take your source, pay Apple the $99 SDK nuisance fee and list the app for free at the app store. The GPL permits this and such undercutting is the main deterrent to trying to sell GPL'd apps. No scarcity = no leverage to maintain your prices.
If you are distributing it on the app store, without including the source code, then you are violating the GPL. Remember, the GPL does not require you to make the source available to the public, it requires you to make the source available to your customers.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Step 1: Port game
Step 2: General controversy over game
Step 3: Profit!
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
You are doing nothing wrong and in fact I think your doing everything right. This is one of the ways I think free software really works well. People pay for the convenience and I would "love" more applications to do this. Just because i want to know I have the ability to modify a program doesn't mean I really want to or that I don't want to pay for the continued development of the program. I don't have the time to contribute to every piece of software I use but I don't want to use software that doesn't respect my freedoms.
Yes! By all means sell! If ever there were a case where making a few bucks was appropriate, it is true in this case. After all, not only do you stand to make a few buck, but you also maintain some liability if/when the people want a refund.... remember, Apple doesn't need to return their portion... YOU do. The risk of actually losing money on this is all on you. So because there is some risk, there should also be some reward. And as long as you are providing the source, you're in complete compliance.
So you're selling a revived game and in the most self deprecating manner front page it's availability on /. where it's most likely to garner the most exposure to the audience most likely to buy it. All the while dismissing any thoughts of making a buck. I salute you sirs, you're evil genius marketing talents are truly evil. Day job in MS marketing?
ideopath @ play
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney
Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money?
Yes, the GPL allows everyone to do this. The right to sell copies is part of the definition of free software. Except in one special situation, there is no limit on what price you can charge. (The one exception is the required written offer to provide source code that must accompany binary-only release.)
See also http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
It's not unreasonable to ask for a way to recoup your development/porting costs.
It's also not unreasonable to try to abide by the wishes of the development team.
I'm guessing that the original development team already have stable jobs -- do you? is your freelancing consistent? I'd venture "not completely"
I'm also guessing that this individual developer feels that the only business model for Linux is to make free software, and screw any bottom-line business model.
This specific developer in question sounds like he got burnt by focusing on the development of xpilot at the sacrifice of his finances. While I admire his support of the community to such lengths, it's not fair to think that everyone should make the same mistakes he made.
You can do a multitude of things. The single BIGGEST thing you can do for this project is bring this back into the public eye, which you're doing now. A microtransaction of a few dollars isn't going to break anyone's bank (compare free Linux to commercial UNIX, and it's a very clear distinction). I feel that you're on the right track myself.
DO keep the source code available though. You're looking at this as under a VENDOR paradigm.
There are no perfect answers, only the right questions. More questions at http://foresightandhindsight.blogspot.com/
In theory the app is free because you can just compile the code and run it yourself. However, Apple does not allow that. You must either spend $99 for a developer license (and probably buy a Mac to compile it on) or get somebody who has a license build a copy keyed for your iPhone.
This means that anybody who wants to run Xpilot has to either spend $2 to get it from the app store or $99 to run it from source -- which makes the source code a lot more expensive than the app. And that may actually not be in the spirit of the GPL.
Of course you could jailbreak your iPhone and run any damn thing you want, up until Apple decides you're breaking the DMCA and sues you. So I don't consider that a valid option either.
dom
The source-code seem to be downloadable http://7b5labs.com/xpilotiphone
Did you know that the FSF charges for GPL software if you buy a copy from them? (Yes, you can also get it for nothing. That's not the point.) So don't feel bad about charging. Yes, give the source away too; if someone else decides to put a version built from the same source in the App Store, they can (assuming they get it past Apple's asinine guardianship, of course).
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
IMHO, Ethics isn't the issue here. Someone either misunderstood or doesn't want to accept that GPL'd software can have a price put on it... So long as the source is available for free or less than the cost of the binary (I prefer free of course ^_^).
I checked out the authors site and lo! There was the source code and I even downloaded a copy for good measure.
There really isn't any reason that someone who has put a lot of work and money into building/porting/developing/fixing a GPL application can't charge for the complied binary other than having to listen to those who don't wish to pay and are far too lazy/technically lacking to compile their own from the source.
The only person "in the wrong" here was the one complaining.
I own a copy of XPilot for the iPhone as I couldn't resist the classical goodness. The author put a LOT of work into making it exceptionally polished and playable on a platform that it wasn't intended for. Not to mention (as the author did) the cost of development.
That was $3 gladly spent. As much as I rely on free apps, I don't much mind spending >10 on REALLY good portable device apps and >20 on desktop apps here and there. The thing is, they need to be significantly better than average to be "worth buying" in my mind. This is why I actually donate to authors of apps that are one, two or even three cuts above.
Show them some love people and perhaps fewer developers would charge you for the pleasure of initially using it in the first place!
This signature is lame.
This is from http://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html - and the person referred to is Richard Stallman.
Please do continue selling the software - as long as you provide the source code to anyone who demands for it, you are within the limits set by the GPL, legally, morally and ethically.
To me one of the general short comings of FOSS licenses is the question of the compiler. To me something is only truely FOSS if along with the binary I get I also have access to a compiler that is available under a FOSS license and the compiler flags. Anything else may be readable in source, but simply not really enabling me to reproduce the binary in the original or in a slightly altered way.
On the "spirit of GPL" issue, the developer is wrong. As long as I can remember RMS has encouraged companies to sell GPL'd software.
http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9911/08/freedom.GNU.idg/index.html
I've done business in the world of free software for 14 years now, ever since I began selling tapes of GNU Emacs in 1985, and I agree with Jamie Zawinski (as quoted in Stig's article) that free software and greed are not incompatible -- at least, most of the time they can coexist. But greed alone will not protect our freedom. There are occasions where defending freedom requires a special effort, an effort that requires a motivation beyond material gain.
If all that is good, I think the response should really be that if you need to recover your cost, then you should of course be able to do that. However if anyone wants wants to make binaries available for free, then they can always compile the source themselves and make a free app available on app store or offer it through on of the installers available on jailbroken phones.
Yes; Free software does not mean gratis: If the developer claims charging for the software violates the spirit of the GPL they are mistaken. They may feel it violates the spirit of the community around the software, or the spirit in which they themselves gave away the software at no charge, but this doesn't mean you are doing anything wrong by charging; $3 is such a trifle compared to other costs of operating the iPhone, that it doesn't seem you are doing anything unreasonable -- although a lower price might encourage more buyers, and lead to more cash for your service in the long run.
You have to permit free redistribution, that doesn't mean you have to distribute it free yourself. You are actually providing a service that you deserve to be paid for, in fact, that you deserve to profit from. The fact the original creator didn't charge for the distribution doesn't mean you don't have a right to charge for the service you are adding.
As long as you are careful to follow the terms requiring distribution of source and notifying users of the app that it is GPL'ed software, using (for example) a banner when the application is first started.
YouTube
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
The GPL, as many have commented, does not preclude or even discourage charging money for the software. The primary ethical thrust of the GPL is that your users must have unbridled freedom to use, modify, and redistribute the software you have provided to them. You appear to have met that cleanly.
But, as a considerate human being, you've also taken the time to consider the original authors personal wishes. That's a gracious thing to do, but obviously it's now landed you in an awkward position. Candidly, I'm with you; I'm rather biased, and think that folks deserve to receive compensation for their work on Free Software. However, it's up to you to decide how far to go in satisfying their personal wishes. So, it remains an interesting ethical dilemma, but I think it has nothing to do with the GPL.
Of course, if this is all a clever marketing stunt, and you're in cahoots with the original developer to create a fake controversy, then my hat is off to you, sir. :-).
Cheers,
Jeremy
Ok, so the compiler costs money. It costs money to purchase the computer that software runs on. What is the first step of running or compiling any piece of software? Purchase a computer. It seems wrong to get hung up on the the price of purchasing the compiler software while ignoring the investment costs of simply purchasing a computer and internet access. Or in this case the cost of purchasing an iPhone.
There doesn't seem to be anything requiring the compiler to be free.
There are too many people answering wheather this is legally possible and not the fundamental question on wheather it's right to go against the lead developers wishes. The reason the GPL was created was not to form communities that want free things, but more to ensure that you have the right to change whatever you want; port to other platforms for example. For better or worse this "freedom" already costs $99 on the iPhone, but enables other developers with cool ideas to add them as soon as they come in. That is what the GPL is protecting.
The reason most GPL programs are free as in beer as well is that the cost of compiling is negligable. Interstingly, in this case it is not. The average person makes out much better by buying a copy from you then compiling the source. If the developer expets you to go into debt to offer this game, he is out of his mind. I think profit sharing is the best model personally, but I have trouble believeing that this guy is not amenable to letting you sell the game at cost.
If he wants the game to be free, let him go through the trouble of maintaing the servers and recompiling for the iPhone. See how he likes paying money every month in order to keep with the "spirit of the GPL".
To sell GPL'd software: OK. To link GPL'd software with non-GPL'd software (e.g. Iphone libraries) : Not OK to distribute. Verify if you are linking with non-GPL, and if so, change the GPL to something else, perhaps BSD or MIT.
Your software was released under the GPL v2. According to the FSF compliance officer (http://www.linux.com/archive/feature/131752) - While the new provisions fo the gpl v3 would be violated by the app store code signing the GPL v2 does not contain such a provision and therefore you are not in violation of the license. As pointed out the fact that you are "selling" the software clearly does not place you in violation of the GPL. However, as the FSF point out - it is not currently possible for you to produce "free" software - according to the FSF definition of the term, for the iphone as it does not meet the 4 requirements of free software - an end user cannot modify your software and run it on their own iphone without also signing up for an apple developer account. because of this you are very much in violation of the spirit if not the letter of the GPL - you must decide whether you want to continue in this regard. If you wish to continue the project in the spirit of the GPL i would suggest you port it to jailbroken iphones and remove it from the app store
... then you shouldn't be writing applications for the iPhone, which is probably the most corrupt, closed, and bullshit platform ever invented.
I thought the minimium price was 99 cents, in which case there is no practical way to distribute it to the public (who dont have jailbroken phones nor will pay the developer fee) for free. So IMO the original developer needs to suck it up.
I was going to bring up Redhat as an example too but you beat me to it. Totally agree with you.
(Emphasis is in the original.) So not only does the FSF think that it's acceptable to charge money for GPLed software, they strongly encourage it.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
I don't think this guy understands the GPL. Its essence is that you give up control of your software after the release. The beauty of that is that everyone gets freedom. He can post the earlier versions on his site, which, I gather he hasn't been doing, you can add to it, and I can download or not as I choose.
Also looking at the videos from that web-page it seems to me that the developers have contributed significantly to the project, especially in coming up with innovative controls for the game suiting the iphone.
To me the whole thing also seems pretty clear, they are not doing anything wrong at all.
You're technically violating the GPL by having the binary on the App Store and not having the source on the App Store. Since they are not in the same place, they may not have the same availability and a long time in the past Stallman has said that they must be on the same server. Ideally you should bundle the source and put it up on the App Store as well.
Practically you are fine since if someone did sue you and was able to explain the issue to the judge, the judge might possibly order you to make the source available on the App Store, but that would be about all.
The issue of charging money for GPLed software is a red herring, and the dev kit is ok since the GPL explicitly allows system libraries and compilers to not be distributed with the source.
IIRC, the apple developer agreement basically specifices that your code is effectively under NDA, because you are under an NDA to access the API etc.
Thus you can't legally do GPL code for the iPhone: you can't release the source under Apple's liscence, but you must under the GPL.
Test your net with Netalyzr
If you want to look at it from a different angle, you are charging for the distribution of the app. In order to distribute the app, you incurred certain costs. Apple incurs costs distributing it as well. I'm sure they take a cut of your app's selling price, and so, in essence, you are also compensating them for their effort.
I try hard to only use Open Source software for a wide variety of reasons. I'm definitely only willing to pay for Open Source, except for games. The Google app store does not make it possible for me to exercise this preference in a reasonable way. Licensing is not a required field for someone to fill out, and the phone shows you nothing about it.
One thing I really like about the GPL is that it is perfectly fine to charge for GPL software. I think many people forget this, or are too cautious about business models surrounding it. A lot of people want to pay for things because it makes them feel like they're getting something valuable and/or because they want to support the developer.
I thought the google app store represented an ideal environment to test this out models in which people pay for FOSS applications. But they blew it by not telling people how the software they're paying for is licensed.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
One that is has a price of $0 and one that costs $2.99(or whatever). If Apple gives you a problem saying the two versions are identical, provide an extra model or two(or whatever) to the paid version. That way, you give people the option:
They can throw a couple bucks your way(well 2 your way and one Apple's, a large part of that dollar winds up going to the cc company)
They can get the version for free.
End of dilemma.
Monstar L
Of course there's a spirit of the licence. You don't think that lawyerspeak is the most important value in life do you? Or that ethics consists of doing the maximum that you can get away with while still squeezing within the letter of the law? In fact, according to its author, the letter of the GPL is less important than its spirit, which is expressed in the preamble:
Now, is this spirit being upheld when you buy the app from the App Store? Do you have freedom to distribute copies of it to other iPhone users? Can you change the software and run your changed version? It's pretty clear that people who buy it from the App Store don't have these freedoms; even if they can get the source code from some web site, that's about as much use to them as the printed copies of source code that used to be supplied with IBM mainframes instead of a real online copy you can rebuild and run. So I think the original author had a point; he and his fellow contributors made the software with the expectation that everyone who gets it can freely share and modify it, but here most users cannot.
On the other hand, there are those who don't think this is what the GPL is about. For example Linus has said it's quite okay to distribute locked-down Linux installations that the user can't modify, despite the language about 'freedom' in the GPLv2 licence. So there is certainly room for interpretation.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
Not only is what you are doing allowed under all versions of GPL, the FSF encourages you to charge for free software, because if you make money, that could help you write more free software.
Charging for an iphone app is symptomatic not of you the developer or the GPL, but of the scarcity of software for the iPhone, and the scarcity of developers for it. Free software should not discriminate against any field of endeavor, including commercial. We both know that if the iPhone was an open platform the price of GPL'd games would tend towards 0. The GPL is not in conflict with charging for binaries, as long as you have published the exact source used to build the binaries.
If the an XPilot author feels a violation has been made, he should ask himself why he isn't using an open cellphone platform and encouraging others to do the same.
I Browse at +4 Flamebait
Open Source Sysadmin
If apple wants that APP store lock then drop the $99 fee maybe the FCC should look at that as well.
The original developer can go jump.
As long as you including the source or a written offer to provide the source yada yada yada then you are complying with the license in letter, and in spirit: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
They can just download the code and release a free (as in price) version for the iphone themselves if it is such a big concern to them.
you're absolutely fine. I wish more open-source iphone projects would come around, having the example code out there wouldn't hurt.
You might also mention that since it's open source, anyone is able to modify it and sell it as well. In fact, if they want, they can take your source, unmodified, and put it in the store for free or for $20/download!
If you do make the source code available or do not tell people where to find it somewhere in the app itself (since readme files are useless on the iPhone), then I'd say you are grievously abusing the spirit and intent of open source and should be sued into the ground and possibly burned alive :)
Hey, has anyone set up a repository for open source iPhone projects? This would be a great resource for people trying to learn the phone, and might also lead to some great cooperative projects.
Per the GPL, the application binary does NOT have to include the source code - only a written OFFER to provide the source code.
I'm not a lawyer, but the following seems pretty clear:
Obviously, in this case, option 3 does not apply, but option b does allow you to distribute the binary without the source code, as long as you include a written offer (and, of course, the other requirements of the GPL - disclaimer of warranty, copy of the GPL text, copyright notices, etc) to provide the source in a medium customarily used for exchanging data between computers (which could be any Internet site, or a CD, or even tapes or floppy discs (but that's just being a jerk, at this point in time, to distribute data on tape of floppy since most people don't have those anymore lol).
RMS, the author of the GPL, has said many times for many years that it's OK, if a bit unusual, to charge for GPL'd software. Whatever else can be said about the man, I would think he's a suitable authority on what "the spirit of the GPL" is, given that he, you know, wrote the thing.
In other words, there is no betrayal. This is just a bunch of baw from someone who apparently forgot -or perhaps never understood- that the Free Software movement and the GPL from which it sprang have always, at their very core, been about freedom, not price. What these guys are doing is perfectly kosher.
Selling the app and giving away the source code is NOT in violation of the letter or spirit of the GPL. Being a bully and telling others what they are allowed and not allowed to do with code after you have made it available by the GPL, just to suit your own desires and narrow view of the world, is in sharp conflict with the word and intent of the GPL.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Appstore might be difficult with the GPL requirements. Because the source needs to be available, placing your binaries to appstore is problematic.
One way to go around that is that you put the source to web and place url clearly visible to the binary. So that there is clear offer of source code distribution together with the binaries. So that when the binary gets distributed, everyone who receives it has access to the source code.
GPL not only creates freedom for the users to customize their code, it also creates freedom for the code to evolve should the original author rest on their laurels and let opportunities pass them by.
That said, I think I'll go buy a copy of your app, just to throw a little salt in the eyes of the original developer for being such a crybaby.
cat
He's talking out of his ass. It's a software license, one that specifically allows you to charge for your software. As long as you abide by the other terms, you are fine.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
The right thing to do, would have been to contact the original designers and ask for their permission in the first place. Hey, makes sense... Now, of course, when it comes to profit, they probably would have wanted a share, seems fair, since it was their idea in the first place. A simple courtesy, you know. A tribute to the original labourers of this work. Of course, if there is a profit from this, they would have wanted in, that's all negotiable. Anyways, not surprised at the development of this. Nobody can accuse developers of having common sense now uh? :P
As one of the original contributors (hint: tractor beams, clusters, modifiers, auto-pilot, bounce code, etc. etc.) I don't feel betrayed at all. You sounded like you did due diligence (although not contacted, that's understandable, I tend to remain trollishly annoymous :-D). As others have mentioned, charging a nominal fee for something you did not 100% construct is fine, and seems to be a standard practice, even for GNU/GPL stuff. In fact I believe charging for delivery/media costs is mentioned in such licenses (if not I expect a billion souls to cry out, and will stand corrected). In fact I can actually think of many other professions where this happens; you have provided a service for which you charge. Shocking concept! I guess you guys have to eat, drink coffee and have warm clothes like most of us who don't have tenure or live in mom's basement. ;-)
You have provided a method for people to get this totally free if they wish even! Power to you!
I'm actually super stoked to see this resurrected in some form - I often brag about how cool the game was. You're almost tempting me to buy an iPhone :-D
(FYI: I was about to submit and the captcha was "reuses"... how apt... it's a sign!)
It was also suggested by another comment that it is fine for someone else to download the source and put the app on the App store for $0.00. Now that I feel would really violate the spirit of the GPL (given it was done knowingly, and that the original game only used the income to cover costs).
If one wants to play the game for $0.00 it's still free both as in beer and as in speech. Just not att the App Store right now. Other informed posters said that at normal stores GPL applications are sold at quite steep prices in boxes. The authors could do the same (the box for XPilot would then be a nice manual or something else not included in the GPL version), just to separate it from the original GPL version.
If he wanted to ensure that no one charged for a derivative work, he should have chosen a different license. (Like the Moria license maybe.)
But then probably no one would have ported it to the iPhone (unless they've got $99 to burn and are feeling benevolent) and there'd be *two* ways that we'd never be reading this article.
"The Crystal Wind is the Storm, and the Storm is Data, and the Data is Life"
I'm not hating the player. But Yes this was a nice slashvertisement.Nice job promoting a game, and offering promotional pricing.
And yes sell the game. Its called the GPL, not the BPL (Broke-ass public license). Sell it at $2.99 -- you are not bound by anything other than what the GPL requires of you and you are meeting it. The issue is APPLE not you. Apple's tight control of the app store makes it such that a dupe but free app likely won't get approved. App store aside, anyone can package it for a jailbroken iphone.
Go make money young guys! Don't be ashamed of making/improving something and charging for it. If you are grateful and make good money throw the community a bone -- pay for a community forum, donate some cash to the orginal devs or your favorite map designer.
No problem! The GPL doesn't prohibit charging for software -- it even allows you to distribute source *only* to people who have bought your software, rather than to everyone. It just doesn't let you restrict how that source is then used (other than requiring it or derivatives to still be GPLed.). They of course can make a less expensive or free competitor too if they want.
You can charge whatever you want, don't feel bad. If I expected to write software I never wanted anyone to charge for, I would add a license term saying that. The GPL is free as in freedom, not free as in cost.
Initially, Apple had a NDA on the IPhone SDK, esentially disallowing any source to be released that referenced the SDK, therefore making GPL'd apps on the IPhone impossible. The NDA's been lifted though so there's no problem there.
Except that you need to publish your source code... which means that you are also GPLed... which means I can go and grab it and put it in for 99c.
it remembers me of "Solar Jetman - Hunt for the Golden Warpship".
The use of the app store and a locked down (in the case of users without developer licenses!) platform somewhat undermines the usual assumption that by providing the source code anyone has the power to modify the program running on their device. Which is unfortunate and alters the conditions from those that GPL software is usually distributed under, since it's harder for someone to take advantage of that source to modify the app's behaviour or to undercut your price. But that's really a problem with the platform and the app store, which you haven't created. And, at the end of the day, anybody else is still free to pay for the developer license - like you did - then put the resulting work onto app store for free.
Arguably the really question is whether you ought to "compensate" for the deficiencies of the app store (cost as a barrier to entry, devices locked down) by distributing your app for free. I don't see that that's necessary.You have running costs on the server, right? So you're providing a service and it's right that you feel justified in charging for it. Not to mention the understandable wish to make back the money you paid for developer kits and to get compensation for your time.
Also, it's not against the spirit of the GPL to charge for the software, by the FSF / RMS's definition. It might be against the spirit that the original developers intended their contributions to be under but then they should have chosen a different license. Arguably the developer who got in contact with you is - though presumably acting in good faith - the one who truly is violating the spirit of the GPL. Why? Because he's trying to apply additional restrictions which all the other contributors explicitly disallowed when they used the GPL for their own code. He probably doesn't see it that way and I certainly don't think there's any reason to think he's being *bad*. But he is not correct in his reasoning, IMO.
If you really wanted to make a gesture over this issue (though neither the GPL nor ethics would seem to require you to) you could try some of the following:
a) donating more code to the original project, ensuring its merged upstream, if you haven't already
b) donating money to the project
c) provide an alternate apps store download that is free but cannot connect to your Xpilot-iPhone server (then if other people want to provide the service for free they can, whilst your paying customers get to use the service you're providing)
d) lower the price (or make it free) when your developer licenses (and, optionally, your time) have been paid for. Making this somewhat like a bounty system, which gets used in OSS anyhow.
c) feels quite impure in some ways, so I'd think a) and b) are probably the appropriate way to go, with d) if you feel extra generous!
It would be nice to try to contact the former developer when someone will modify their software...
When I first read the header I thought "oh yeah, the ethics of getting something for free and then charging for it's sale", but as I read the entire story/question, I have to agree with the majority of people; you are within your rights to charge for it.
If the average iPhone user was capable of installing their own apps, then yes, you would be in violation of the GPL regardless of how little you charge. However, this is not the case. People cannot just download your source and install it themselves. As you mentioned, there are charges involved with being an iPhone App developer and it's one thing to develop software for free, and quite another to not only develop it, but also incur extra charges for its delivery.
I have no idea who the original developer was or why he feels betrayed, but in my opinion you guys are going about it the right way.
A perfect example to use for your "re-packaging fees" would be RedHat. They've been selling Linux for quite many years. At first there weren't many improvements they included, but as the company has grown, they have contributed quite a bit for the development of not only their distribution, but Linux in general.
--thrill
1. I think selling it the way you are is a problem. From the GPL "You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee." You're charging a fee for something else.
And the bigger one:
2. You have to make the source code available to a licensee. The GPL says "The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable." Notice that last part, "installation of the executable?" So, YOU have to give me the right to put an app in the App Store (you can't unless you're Apple) or the right to use the iPhone SDK (you can't unless you're Apple).
In short, you cannot distribute a GPL application and comply with the GPL license.
The URL referred to makes this case based on a quote of the GPLv3 "Installation Information" clause,
Even then, I wonder if "incompatible" is not overstating the case. 1) Does conveying here "occu[r] as part of a transaction in which..."? 2) Who exactly is "retain[ing] the ability to install modified object code..."?
Timeo idiotikOS et dona ferentes
Before widespread electronic networking, RMS charged $100 for a copy of Emacs. That tape included the full source code of course, but it was still a charge. To cover the cost of duplication and distribution, and possibly enough left over for ramen noodles at the end of the day.
I would see your $1.99 fee in the same regard. It's not free to put an app on the iPhone store, you have to pay. There is no ethical dilemma in charging money for the nominal cost of distribution.
If you were charging $19.99, that would be a different story.
Software can be upgraded with no cost to the original developer! I think this shows one of the greatest things that Open Source and GPL offer. The original developer did'nt have to pay a cent to see it's software evolve on a new platform or be up to date. The rules can seem unfair, but the same rules allow him to sell the app also! He can get the new code (for free), and state that he is the original developer in his marketing.
There is no "question here", this is a marketing ploy to get the slashdot effect and maybe sales.
There is no "spirit" to GPL, there is only the legaleze.
GPL does not state GPL'd code cannot be sold, so you can sell it.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
On a related note, it's also absolutely fine for someone else with an iPhone developer license to download the source code and put it on the app store for free.
Apple does not allow "duplication of functionality" and they would surely reject such resubmissions.
So the first person to submit a binary to Apple gets control of that software on the appstore, can charge for it, and can prevent anyone else from doing the same including the software's copyright-holder. Legality aside, this is bad, bad chemistry between the GPL and the appstore.
+1 the GPL does not prohibit the selling of the software ... hence you guys are on the right side ... moreover, your team's collaboration with the original developers shows your commitment to the FOSS community and that it actually means something to you guys ... I say go for it.
... if music be fruit of love, play on
It has become apparent that the answer to this question is readily available, should he have looked.
This is obviously just a gambit to get people to buy his game. /golfclap
As others have noted, selling copies of GPLed software for a fee is perfectly okay.
BUT, there might be other problems here: In a blog post, the FSF said the iPhone isn't compatible with free software: http://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/why-free-software-and-apples-iphone-dont-mix
This is your second mistake: feeling absolved for providing the source code when you know that the ordinary person can't simply compile it and load it into their own insanely locked down iPhone. That makes the source code particularly unusable, except as a programming example to aspiring iPhone developers.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
First, you're totally within the GPL. GPL means you distribute the source with the extra freedoms specified by the GPL, and anyone who gets a copy of the object code can get the source code easily (paraphrased, but that's the idea).
But, you sound like a good man who wants to do right by the original developers. That is a noble goal. Not legally necessary, but good for the karmic soup.
It may simply be a question of framing (which, unfortunately, may be tough to redo now). If you can put it this way, it might be easier for the original developer to swallow:
We've ported XPilot to work on the iPhone, and have posted the source code for all to download for free! We've also published the object code on Apple's evil proprietary distribution network, and to the clueless end users who don't want to learn about source code, why it should be free, and how to compile their own apps as The Flying Spaghetti Monster intended -- those for whom RMS merely means Root Mean Squared -- we charge $2.99.
Maybe it would work, maybe not. I know that's why I (a somewhat religious fan of GPL for my (all-to-infrequent) Open Source work) see no problem with charging for object code. If you can't compile, you're not my target audience when I use the GPL, and I have no problem moving some of your money into our society.
JM2C, of course. And I'm not saying that's the right way for everyone to see it. If your views are different, that's fine -- it's just an opinion.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Copyright (c) ,
All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
* Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
* Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
* Neither the name of the nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
The above is the BSD license. You get everything you want. Open source, which you can sell, and none of the GPL's entanglements or other bullshit.
This response will, of course, be down modded into oblivion by Stallman's cultists, because they're generally desperate to ensure that any possible alternatives to their "freedom," never see the light of day, but I guess I can hope that you stumble upon it first.
To quote the GPL: When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. and: For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must pass on to the recipients the same freedoms that you received. So, it seems that the developer never read the GPL.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Nonsense. It was GPL. It belonged to everyone, to do what they want with it, as long as they abide by the GPL. The only thing wrong that happened here is that some bully and crybaby wanted to control what other people did because of something he did in the past, and, of course, the mistake of trying to appease him.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
We are not free to jump the hoops, we are free to try ... with no guarantee of success and with a substantial monetary cost.
Platforms which don't allow modified GPL software to run are inherently problematic, I do feel it goes against the spirit of the GPL to even distribute software on such platforms. I'm not really the only one, it was a major impetus behind GPL v3 after all.
I would like to congratulate you for making money off of 15 year old software and keeping it alive.
You're going way beyond what is required by the GPL.
You are allowed to sell the software and make a profit and no you don't have to share any of it. If you do have a desire to share your profits, make sure you get their SSNs and report that information to the IRS. :-) I mean you wouldn't want them to be breaking the law by having unreported income would you?
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
Yesterday one of my kids was complaining that her younger sister has more drink in her cup than she does. Traditionally the younger kids get a little less. We talked about regardless of what someone else has, it doesn't take anything away from what you have. The comparison and injustice is only in your mind.
So it is here.
You took a dead project and brought it back from the dead. You could because of the coolness factor of the GPL, and you're complying with that. There's nothing wrong with charging for it.
I agree, it is unfortunate that one of the original authors isn't on board. However, even if he doesn't like what you're doing (and it sounds like for some moral reasons that he believes you are violating) he has given you, or anyone really, permission to go ahead and use that source. It's just sour grapes at this point by complaining about the reasoning behind using the source.
He doesn't have anything less by you doing this. And that's the point right? The GPL is to take what's there, add to it and pass it along. As others have pointed out he's free to update and release it himself if he feels that strongly about it. He would likely tell you that it's not worth his time and/or the money to do so. But what is your time and money worth? I'm thinking he's not looking at the full picture.
I wouldn't sweat it too much. But I agree, it's too bad he feels that way. Sometimes you just have to agree to disagree.
It never occurred to us that one of the original creators would feel that we were betraying their contribution.
Yeah, you're only selling what he gave you for free. Who would take issue with that? You're in the clear legally, but don't expect to make friends this way.
The GPL is quite clear on this. If the original publishers didn't want it to be charged for, they should have created their own license. 15 years ago they didn't cover their bases, and have since abandoned the code? You're fine. If they want a complete free on available, let them release one. After all, it is the GPL. THAT is the spirit of the license, and by my reckoning you have done an admirable job of honoring it. Thank you for your contribution.
...we're betraying the spirit of the GPL by charging for it.
Self-absorbed, immature bullshit. Ignore it.
We'd thought we were contributing to the community and the legacy of this game by reviving it...
You were.
...we honestly believe we're going about this in a reasonable way.
You are.
Technically speaking, you're not doing anything wrong.
Morally speaking, you are. Apple iPhone is a fenced product in complete control of Apple. There is nothing free about it. Releasing GPL software for iPhone is in direct contradiction of GPL spirit.
Note that this is different from windows. There anybody is free to just pay for the OS and then download any compilers, any code, anything and therefore it is not ideal but OK from the perspective of GPL. iPhone on the other hand is a piece of hardware that is effectively owned by Apple and not the person who bought it.
Directly from the gnu.org website and from the mouth of Stallman. Emphasis added.
"Since free software is not a matter of price, a low price isn't more free, or closer to free. So if you are redistributing copies of free software, you might as well charge a substantial fee and make some money. Redistributing free software is a good and legitimate activity; if you do it, you might as well make a profit from it."
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
The reason Free (as in speech) software is usually free (as in beer) is an economics rule saying (I'm paraphrasing from memory) that in a totally free market, a product's price is the cost to produce the last copy of it. Since a copy of software costs zero to produce, and since free software almost always creates a free market (no barriers of entry for competitors), Free software is almost always free.
If we look at your case, the only reason you are able to charge more is that Apple managed to create a non-free market, despite the software being Free. After all, if it weren't for the 99$ entry price and the maintenance headache, that developer would have just compiled your sources and distribute the iPhone package himself for free. It is the very non-free market conditions that allow you to sell this software to begin with.
What are the implications? I'm afraid I'm providing more questions than answers, but at least these are different questions than you started out with :-). It's clear that legally you are 100% in the clear. You are also in the clear from the purely moral aspect. The only question is whether it is fair to exploit the lack of freedom imposed by Apple to charge people, and whether the question of whether you are making a profit (vs. merely returning some of the costs) makes any difference.
Personally, my solution would have been (and has been) to not buy an iPhone. I'm working with some of the android phones now, and find them too restrictive for my taste. I own a Neo Free runner, which is all free but not so functional. When all is said and done, you need to find some balance that works for you, and stick to it no matter what the original developer, or for that matter, the Slashdot crowd (myself included) says.
Shachar
... and then offer to split the rest with him or donate it to FSF.
If he really feels offended he can always:
1. buy a copy (because the GPL only requires that you honour requests from people you have distributed the code to)
2. request the source code from you (because you don't have to distribute the source without request)
3. set up selling it for less
The GPL says free for any purpose; and that includes selling.
The GPL spells out what it is about. We are presumably talking GPL v2 here. Source has to be included without extra charge, or a written offer for it. As long as you do that, you are fine. A separate download announced separately does not count. It would be appropriate to include the source in some form automatically in the download.
Think of it this way. You were not obligated to port the game. You had no moral obligation to spend months of your time working on that project. Once you did spend your time, you still had no moral obligation to give the product of your work to anyone else -- it was your time, not theirs. Second, if you hadn't ported the game, noone would have it on the iPhone (assuming noone else ported it). Still no moral wrong on your part. If you sell the game for $2.99, now the people willing to pay the $2.99 have it. Key word was willing. People will only buy the game from you if they value the game more highly than $2.99 of their own cash. In no way have you violated any principle of ethics by granting them the opportunity to choose between Their $2.99 and your game. Even if you charged $3000 per copy, you have still only granted people an opportunity, albeit a useless opportunity for most people. The point is that you take nothing from anyone in making this offer. There is nothing wrong with it.
However, with Windows I can run whatever code on it.
No, you can't. Read your EULA.
The GPL has no provisions relating to the price of the compiled binaries. You can set these to whatever you want for whatever reason you want.
I can't recall offhand if you can charge anything for source code, if you can, charging more than distribution even if permitted would definitely be iffy from an ethical perspective IMO.
There is no universal ethical tradition regarding selling GPL code, provided you fullfill the terms of the license and don't exploit any loopholes you find to restrict source availability- any such loopholes you find should be reported to the FSF and the copyright holder(if different) so they can be plugged, you should not take any advantage of them.
So it's really up to you. Just remember that while you have a right to expect credit, if someone takes your port, compiles it, and starts distributing it for free, you cannot do anything to stop them. The most you might be able to do is demand credit for your part of the code.
If the entire project team asks you to stop charging, I'd consider it, but it's really not their call to make. I personally think you should be nice and consider their request, but keep it firmly in mind that it is a request only, it has no legal force, and only as much moral force as you choose to give it.
There is absolutely no problem. Even RMS is fine with it.
The problem is these fanatics who embrace and extent the philosophy beyond a reasonable point because they lack a grasp of the real world. Charging for software is bad? Please. Unfortunately, the same thing happened with Linux, with all the MS IS EVIL idiots embracing it as their platform of choice. Which ultimately, is only holding back development.
People who try to enforce freedom by restricting freedom don't understand what freedom means.
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
Well, I'm that disgruntled original developer, and I'll let other developers chime in if they feel like it, though most of the conversations with Sean and Michael (SM) have been with me. I'm incredibly torn:
On the one hand, SM have put some life back into a project that's dear to my heart, and I'm really thrilled about that. They deserve thanks.
On the other hand, SM are trying to unfairly profit from the man-years of development work that went into XPilot, and that just rubs me (and the other developers that I asked) the wrong way.
Why is XPilot not free? "Covering distribution costs" is a joke. They are negligible ($99 per year amortized across all their projects) and I (and I'm sure tons of other people too) is willing to put the game up for free. This wouldn't be very nice to SM, so I was hoping to avoid that.
I even suggested to SM that they make it free after they recouped their distribution costs (which should be about now considering the PR it's getting), but that made them go ballistic.
Is the source is freely available? Well...
1) They haven't checked in any of their source since June (more than a month), though the latest release is from a few days ago.
2) The availability of the source code isn't clearly (or at all) advertised in the game, and until I complained about it, wasn't even advertised on the app store page.
It's pretty clear to me that they did this port wanting to make money from their development time, which is no different from a commercial venture, but quite different from the expectations of every other contributor of XPilot (and other open source projects). I would even say it's against the spirit of the GPL.
There are a number of other issues with selling open source software:
The only thing that might make sense charging for, as far as I can see, is the running of the servers, as that is a per-user cost someone will have to bear.
(I won't even get into the argument that it's against the GPL to even distribute through the app store, but I'll stay away from that since I think that's sad and better dealt with by lawyers and Apple.)
They shouldn't have released it under a licence that would allow you to do what you did. I would put the price back up to $2.99 and tell the to like it or lump it.
You can't support open source software and then get in a mood because someone does something with your code that you may not necessarily like but follows the licence and especially if they go out of their way to be helpful and kind to the original community/developers.
The original developers are just being dicks and trying to guilt trip you into doing things their way. You might as well stick with closed source, Microsoft, solutions if you want to be bullied into doing things one way.
As stated too many times to count, the GPL is fine with this. It is nonsense to say that something that the GPL text specifically allows, and something that the authors of the license have been doing since day one, could be against the spirit of the license.
So, that's not your question. Your question is, "if one of the authors of a piece of software chose an inappropriate license, and then after I'd done a bunch of development work based on their code, told me that they wished they'd chosen the 'you may not sell modifications based on this code' non-free license, what should I do?"
In my case, I think that the GPL is a more ethical license than the one he's describing, so I would point out how vastly different this no-selling license would be, and point out that it would not be considered a free software license by anyone (DFSG, FSF, OSI). It can hardly be unfair of you to have thought that, by using a free software license, he meant for you to enjoy the freedoms provided by free software!
In summary:
The usual moronic nonsense. As long as the source is available from the developers, it's fine. Charging for the software is also fine according to the GPL. This "spirit of the GPL" crap comes from morons who can't read the license, or from FSF fanatics who want everything to be free as in beer regardless.
As for whether you can download the source from Apple, that's totally irrelevant. As to why you can't compile and distribute the same app via Apple's store, WHAT THE HELL DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH THE ORIGINAL DEVELOPERS OR THE GPL? Go talk to Apple, you morons.
Morons. Idiots trying to start a flame war because they have nothing better to do with their time - the bane of the OSS movement (not to mention the rest of the world).
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Ask him what he's doing with an iPhone in the first place. Maybe offer him, as a contributor, a free copy for his iPhone. And encourage him to port it to Android and distribute it there, in that somewhat saner environment.
Unfortunately, in the Apple ecosystem, that's as close as even GPL gets to making sure everybody plays fair.
The original developer is upset because he is not getting revenue for his work while others are. That isn't against the license he decide to use, but we have here an economics issue. The market is awarding the one that has the better sales channel (and the one that has keep the innovation pace). So, my conclusion is that OPEN SOURCE NEEDS BETTER SALES CHANNELS! How do I see it? We don't have to invent anything, we have to analyze the succesful cases: RedHat, Apple, Oracle, EBay, Amazon. We need a OPEN SOURCE STORE (sourceforge? Ibm?), where someone can purchase packaged open source solutions, support services (like RedHat), university to have a learning path on the solutions, AND purchase new features (this is new!). PURCHASING OF FEATURES It's the process of contacting a developer and getting a new feature. Suppose I want to sell an open source project to a customer on Mexico, I did'nt have a efficient way to purchase changes to the original developer. i want to have a place were i can contact in a easy way the developer teams.
'Remember when TiVo went by the letter of the GPL (v2) but not the apparent spirit? A new section of GPL v3 was born.'
This is actually the most relevant point in the entire discussion. The iPhone app store falls foul of exactly this clause in GPL3, created to address a very similar issue. John Sullivan at the FSF addresses the problem here:
http://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/why-free-software-and-apples-iphone-dont-mix
"Apple's approach runs headlong into an important part of the GPL's copyleft approach -- the principle that anytime someone shares a copy of a GPL-covered program with another person, she also needs to provide that person with the installable, human-readable source code for that program. This ensures that everyone who gets a copy of a program also gets the raw material needed for any study and modification. This freedom is not meaningful if the computer on which the software is meant to run arbitrarily rejects any potentially changed version installed by the user simply because it has not been signed or approved by a "higher" authority. The latest version of the GPL (GPLv3) includes a provision to address the threat posed by this tivoization and put a stop to this method of depriving users of freedom."
So the problem is not that the app is being charged for (this is fine), but that it's on the app store at all. This violates the spirit of the GPL in general (as it makes one of its fundamental freedoms 'not meaningful') and the letter of GPL3. The letter of GPL2 would not be violated (it's a situation the original GPL authors had simply not considered), provided that the app is accompanied by its source code or a written offer to supply it (presumably the source is not included in the app store download, but is the written offer? - it's not enough just to have the source on the personal site of the iPhone version's authors).
Beer isn't free. In fact, a bottle could cost you $5 or more. I say raise the price of your app to $5.
I'd love to see this app for the Blackberry Storm. I'd even pay a few bucks for it too.
I haven't read the comments posted yet, and i'm sure there's many posts that say the same thing as this, but....
Yes, its fine.
You are allowed to sell GPL'd software for a price, as long as the source is available. Even the insanely pedantic Richard Stallman won't argue against what you did.
You put in the effort to port it to the iPhone and in doing so along with putting it on the App Store you are required to pay for the Apple Developer License.
There is absolutely NO reason why you can't charge for the binary you compiled and made available via the App Store. AS LONG AS THE SOURCE IS AVAILABLE.
If people don't want to pay, that's fine, they can use the source to compile their own binary and put it on their jailbroke iPhone for free or whatever. Who cares. At this point it is no longer your problem.
Your coded changes are still freely available under the GPL; it's just your packaged, signed, and apple approved binary that is not.
So in the spirit of the GPL, legally AND morally, you are fine.
You can tell how powerful someone is by the magnitude of the crime they can commit and be able to get away with.
I don't see how this is not much different than the people selling CDs of the linux distros. Since you provide the complete source on your website, the product you are providing is essentially a service to compile the code and provide the result in a convenient package on the iphone store. If someone wants the software on their phone, they can do all that themselves, or pay you and Apple to get it in a convenient manner.
Here's some food for thought guys.
GPL workaround:
My friend writes a new application toolkit for windows. This toolkit has a lot of neat graphics functionality. ...
I take the x-pilot GPL code. I make the x-pilot code work on my friends new toolkit.
I release the new version of x-pilot, and charge 3$ for it. I provide the source on my website.
My friend will happily sell you a license for his toolkit for $3000, under a (closed source) license which requires you don't modify it.
Whenever I want to add a new feature to x-pilot, I write some code, donate it to my friend, who puts it in his toolkit.
I then call the relevant function in his toolkit from x-pilot.
X-pilot continues to be free and gpl - anyone who wants can see all the function calls. But the meat of my code is in my friend's closed source toolkit, which nobody can get at... in effect my GPLd version of x-pilot isn't that useful to anyone - it may as well be non free.
If you imagine that 'my friend' is one shell corporation, and 'I' am another; only 1 developer works for 'me'; all the heavy lifting is done in 'my friend'.
And now we can use the originally gpl'd code, but are effectively free of the restrictions of the license.
For $99 Apple will
- give you a complete set of resources in the iPhone Dev Center.
- give you a framwork for testing your app on the iPhone.
- offer Code-level technical support from Apple engineers.
- host and distribute your application to an unlimited number of people.
It is not an unreasonable fee.
Getting access to the Windows Mobile Marketplace costs $99 as well. And you will have to buy Visual Studio Professional (currently listed at $549.99 at Amazon).
If you send all net profits - everything after your first $99 and other expenses - to the EFF or some other non-profit that promotes open-source software, I don't think anyone will mind.
Oh, and
1) make it clear up front that when you enter profitable territory you'll lower your price to the lowest Apple allows and
2) if possible, put a precompiled binary up somewhere that people can download onto their (jailbroken?) phones for free.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
There was your first mistake. You felt that simply because you liked it, even though it didn't belong to you, that you could go ahead and do this anyway.
Bad move!
This philosophy applies to closed-source software. However, this software was released under the GPL. The entire POINT of the GPL is that you can take code that you like, and port it to whatever device that you like, so long as your changes are also released under the GPL. That is exactly what they have done here. Separately, Apple has decided to charge for the tools to download code onto the device in question. This is hardly unheard of, and it is outside the control of the submitter. The developers here have freely provided the source code, and you are free to port it on your own to Mac OS X, Windows, Linux, Android or whatever else, or to get your own developer account and make changes and put those changes up on the app store, or even to take their existing product as-is and put it up for free on the app store. They have done nothing on their own to restrict the freedom of the software.
This is very much against the spirit of the GPL from a couple of directions.
1) From one side is the real $$ cost to the end user if they wish to modify and improve the software ("Freedom for the user"). Sure, the source is free...but the dev kit is not ($99 I think?) nor is the Mac you are required to own to run the dev kit at all. Even if you gave the app away, this point would still stand.
2) Another is the app store: Apple controls it, so there's little reason to believe someone else improving it a bit and publishing it again would be allowed to ("Freedom for the developer").
3) But mostly it is the real spirit of the GPL: To force all software to be "free" (however you choose to mis-define "free"), if it is yours or not. This application of the GPL does not force Apple to make the dev kit "free", the iPhone OS "free", or development on the iPhone "free". In fact if it's actually any good it promotes the closed nature of the iPhone ("Freedom for software itself").
My
The very large number of responses stating that what you are doing is fine under the GPL are correct. ... you were blind-sided by the original developers' opinions because you didn't ask them, not because the original developers have been at fault, as many of the previous responses claim.
The almost equally large number that say you did nothing wrong are incorrect. You ignored the most basic elements of politeness when you didn't bother to contact the original developers and ask their opinions before you decided to do this.
Having asked their opinions and being told that they disagreed, you could at least have made an informed decision. Undoubtedly you would have proceeded exactly as you have done, and that's probably what I would have done as well. But to make out that you were blind-sided by this is to take a pretty self-centered view of things
Please read the GPL before making or accepting claims as to what it does or does not say.
It is a short, easy read in plain English.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
What you've done is fine. Releasing the source code, especially keeping it up as you add to it, makes it fine. Even with free beer someone has to wash the glasses.
I think people get confused because, in general, GPL implies zero cost software. The reason is that it is hard to sell something when others can give it away for free. I write a GPL'd app and sell it for $50/copy. As required by the GPL, when you purchase it, you get a copy of the code. So you decide that I am way overcharging. You tweak it a bit to your liking, and then sell it for $10/copy. My sales go to zero, since you are selling the same thing for less. Someone else then decides that since it is free software, it should be no cost software, and redistributes what you are selling for nothing at all.
So GPL'd software will strongly tend towards a zero dollar price. However it isn't required that it does so. In the scenario I mentioned, I could continue selling my version for $50. Maybe some people decide know what? We want to support that version and start buying it. Not that likely, but it can happen.
However in all cases, there is nothing saying it MUST cost nothing, it is just the state which it is likely to reach rather quickly, and thus mot authors don't charge to start with, at least not for the software itself. They charge for service or something else.
Er, what open source software doesn't require you to own anything else in order to run or modify it?
Anyone can improve it and publish their new version. Probably not on the app store, but that doesn't matter. If I sell open source software on my website, I have no obligation to list your modified version alongside mine.
That's not at all clear. Maybe users will see that the source code is freely available and then start asking intelligent questions about why Apple is preventing them from experimenting with it on their own hardware.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
There are lots of free as in beer applications in the appstore. Most of them crap, but that goes for the commercial ones too.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
He apparently didn't read the part of GPL that states pretty clearly that its okay to sell it as long as you give away the code as well.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
All computer software costs real money, you have to have a computer to run it on in the first place. Your argument is silly and is warped based on your own perception of what you think the GPL should mean, not what it actually says.
The 'free' in GPL has nothing to do with cost, read it sometime.
You have a twisted idea that GPL is meant to mean you never have to pay for it, which is entirely wrong. Once again I state, read the license before you talk about its spirit.
The 'free' part is that you can get the source code and modify it yourself. Thats it.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Really. He GPL'd it. End of story. Not everything is a morality tale. You've already wasted a lot of time staring at the navel of the thing. And good luck to you.
How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
Its probably already been said here, but they have access to the source code. If the original developers feel that strongly about it they can compile it from your source and get it listed on the app store too. And they can foot the bill for releasing it too.
tatsuling
After it hit the App store, one of the original developers of XPilot told us he feels adamantly that we're betraying the spirit of the GPL by charging for it.
Uhm, no. The "spirit" of the GPL is that anyone can sell GPLed software as long as they continue to give the source code away.
I'd try to figure out a nice way to tell the original developer to:
No, I will not work for your startup
Let me take another stab at this ...
So the computer that you run your GPL software on, thats free then, no one had to pay for it? The guys who compile the software for you, they do it on a free computer? How about the people who developed it originally? Everyone along the chain had to pay money to create the software, distribute and give it to you.
So what? My webserver is controlled by me, so that means I can't put any GPL software on it because I may not want to host someone elses GPL software? Redhat doesn't host my software, are they in violation of GPL? Google turned me down for hosting software because the name I wanted to use was in use on source forge, does that mean google can't host any GPL software because it can't be randomly modified by anyone who feels they should have the right to change it?
GPL doesn't require anarchy, which is what you are suggesting.
Ahhh, I love when twits pull this shit out ... its more free because we force it to be. Funny, I've never heard anyone who was being forced to do something consider themselves to be free. So you think in order to compile GPL source code the entire chain has to be free? So its impossible to run GPL software on Windows with visual studio's compiler or with the intel compiler since they aren't free ... or since you don't have the source code to kernel of Mac OS X, or Windows, nor do you have the source to the gui toolkits, that you can't have GPL software on these OSes?
You aren't required to use Apple to distribute your app, you can use one of the jailbreak methods. GPL doesn't state anywhere that they have to share with you how they distribute apps or allow you to use their servers or libraries.
You are a zealot/fanboy/moron. The entire world doesn't revolve around GPL, sorry. By your definition Linux violates GPL because you have to run it on some hardware and hardware costs money.
You are, in short, an idiot who's just pissed off he doesn't have an iPhone. Get over it dude, its not even that great of a device, drop the iPhone envy, you'll feel better.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
If someone distributes the source according to the GPL, does he has a right to restrict the redistribution of binaries?
A good model would be to have the source distributed as GPL but monopolise the distribution of binaries - if you can compile on your own, you can get it for $0 through the source. However, if you cannot or are too lazy to compile, you can only buy the binary from you.
Probably still a violation of the GPL, but you can modify the GPL and make it your own license for things that you own the copyright.
The only extra "freedoms" provided by BSD are asymmetric freedoms, namely those that increase the freedom of one party at the expense of another. The GPL provides only symmetric freedoms, so that everyone benefits equally.
The classic example is that BSD allows an open-source, community-developed app to be taken, modified, and sold without revealing the modified source code. This benefits the seller (with money) without benefitting the community that originated the code (with updates), so it's asymmetric. What's more, the gain by one party has to be compared against the size of the community that gains nothing from the hidden modifications, which exacerbates the degree of imbalance of freedoms.
Because the GPL provides symmetric freedoms, it maximizes fairness automatically. You may say that "BSD is more free", but the additional freedoms are entirely anti-fair, so it's hard to call them actual "freedoms". "Taking liberties" comes a lot closer.
There is a simple example from the physical world that illustrates this well: a murderer is "more free" if he is allowed to murder people at will, without being put in jail --- indeed, one might shout "There is less freedom if murderers are locked up in jail!". However, that would only be true from the murderer's point of view taken in isolation, whereas from the community's point of view there is more freedom (people not being murdered) if he is restrained in jail.
The BSD vs GPL issue is similar. You can call BSD "more free" than GPL only if you focus solely on the additional "freedoms" that it provides to people who wish to diminish the freedom of others. This is true only when viewed from that narrow perspective. It is not true when viewed from the wider perspective of symmetric community freedoms.
This makes arguments about "which license is more free" quite senseless, because they are not comparing like with like. GPL is a license which maximizes community freedoms and fairness, while BSD maximizes the freedom of one (mainly corporates) while reducing the freedoms and fairness in the community.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
That seems like the key problem, I don't see why everyone is arguing over the cost when the licensing is incompatible. Far as I know this issue has not been addressed by Apple, haven't heard of any attempts to enforce it either though.
"The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -
The first is "B", the second is "S."
Remember the FSF used to (still does?) charge for CD-ROMs of their software. IIRC it was pretty insane in terms of cost, too. They were fundraising.
You are doing two things - trying to deal with Apple's system, and trying to REVIVE THE GAME. If they want to dictate to the world that they would rather XPilot not exist at al than be supported for a nominal fee... well, that's encroaching on freedom, in and of itself.
This discussion of free-as-in-beer vs free-as-in-speech has been going on for a damn epoch and was definitely on the scene when the original developers GPL'd this software. Frankly, if they had a problem with charging for open source software, they should have thought of it before they released it with the GPL.
Previous poster that brought up the fact that Linux distributions have been onsale at Frys offer a germaine comparison. Red Hat and the rest spent time to compile all this software into distributions and marketed them, which provided value to customers.
That sounds to me to be exactly like what these XPilot App developers did. They took an app that ran on unix desktops and put it in a more convenient form: iPhone.
In a world. . .
With 50,000 apps (and counting) floating around, how DOES one get seen? How DOES one achieve that holy grail of marketing coups, the "monetiezed viral phenomenon"?
Well, creating a shitstorm of controversy and then pulling the wool over the eyes of a hundred thousand Slashdotter game junkies would be a good start. Ka-Ching.
Busted.
-FL
Yes, absolutely, there is nothing wrong at all with selling GPL'd software. How much does, say, RedHat charge for RHEL? How about all those hardware devices with GPL'd code in them.
Sure, you have make the source available to anyone who purchases your software (so, technically, you don't need to make it available to everyone) but there's nothing wrong with charging for the compiled software.
Specialist Mac support for creative pros, Melbourne
NM
The GPL is very clear that you are welcome to charge for binary distributions -- recouping your cost and even profiting. You are also welcome to charge for support. (The server is a service you provide, would you be able to use a server subscription model?)
The original developer published under the GPL agreement, and you continued the work under those terms. You acted in good faith. Your obligation is satisfied, and it is your choice as to whether you would like to honor the spirit of the developer you are talking to. That person should have thought about the GPL more carefully if they did not like the terms of the GPL agreement.
What's amusing here is that I do own an iPhone and love it; It's one of the best consumer inventions in a generation.
The OP's question was regarding the spirit of the GPL, the morals involved in using it in such a manor. I'm not arguing for or against the GPL itself, simply examining this particular case by the standards requested (the spirit, goals, morals the GPL enshrines). Based on those standards this use is a clear betrayal of what the GPL is for. Legally it'll hold up in court, sure, but that's neither the question nor the point.
That said: I'm a huge proponent of actual free, actually open source software. The GPL however, is anything but. It's the manifesto of a twisted movement with incredibly misguided values and overtly sinister methods. Those are the standards however, which the OP asked the world to hold their work up to.
I strongly support the OP's work, choices, and reasoning. That's probably because it is in such direct opposition to the values of the GPL, a product of a bunch of loons I am similarly in strong opposition to.
My
Perhaps ( tho i don't agree ) its breaking the *spirit*, but its not breaking the rules in the slightest.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
You had a pretty nice rebuttal until you went all ad hominem on his ass.
$199: Apple Mac Mini Intel Core Duo Processor 1.66 Ghz 607LLA on aBay, free shipping.
Time left to be outbid: nearly 3 days.
I know you were just referring to a barrier for putting it on the app store as a free app
No, it's also a barrier for even using the compiled binary. The $99 isn't just for access to the App Store; it's also for access to install apps that you compiled on an iPod Touch PDA that you bought.
the GPL does restrict the use of code to only other GPL'ed software and requires that you provide the source to any distributed derivatives.
Then put your proprietary plug-ins in a separate program that communicates with the GPL program over a pipe, and document the protocol used over that pipe.
There is a lot of code that is GPL'ed which will only work on Linux. What if I don't want to use linux? I am forced to either install linux or rewrite large portions of code in order to create a usable version for the platform of my choice.
I don't see how one would need to "rewrite large portions of code" to get a Linux app running under *BSD or Darwin or Cygwin. Small portions yes; large portions no.
The FSF may have authorized the GPL, but they have nothing to do with it's application.
If I choose to offer my software under the GPL, the FSF has absolutely nothing to do with that, unless I sign over the copyright to them (not bloody likely).
As such, the only valid interpretation of the "spirit" of the GPL, as it pertains to *MY* software, is *MINE*. That said, the "spirit" of the GPL is totally irrelevant. If it was important to me that all copies of the software be made free as in beer, I should have addedd that as an addendum to the GPl when I decided to license my code under it.
These guys apparently did not, and the GPL actually explicitly states that it is Ok to charge for access to the software (heck the even allow for nominal fees to access the source code), so this dev is SOL AFAICS.
Note that this is not "all the developer permissions from Apple needed to run the object code," just "all the source code."
GPLv3, unlike GPLv2, also requires that one who conveys the work under license provide "Installation Information" unless the work is not designed for use in a home environment.
if devs were required to provide everything needed to run a GPL program, then they would have to provide a Windows license for every GPL program written to run on Windows.
That's covered by the rules around "System Libraries" and "Major Components". GNU was first developed as a replacement for the userland of proprietary UNIX. The "Linux operating system" happened when Linus Torvalds wrote a replacement for the Minix kernel and then someone else replaced the Minix userland with GNU.
That is called the "Java Trap" (it was called that before Java became F/OSS) where the code is free, but the platform is not. However, with Windows I can run whatever code on it.
"Java trap" refers to a platform that has no Free implementation. For example, the parts of Windows that aren't in Wine and the parts of Mac OS X Cocoa that are not in GNUstep are Java-trapped. But what we're running into here is "Tivoization", which uses verification of a platform vendor's digital signatures to take away the user's right to modify software.
You still have to buy the original device to run Windows.
My cousin has bought an iPod Touch; under state sales of goods laws, he owns the hardware. But without paying Apple $99 per year, he can't run software that he has compiled on it.
$60 a month for the At&t plan, minimum 2 year
The data plan for an iPod Touch is $0 per year because you're using the same internet connection over which you used a Mac to download the iPhone SDK in the first place. I don't agree with the iPhone SDK requirements either, but please don't make your argument weaker by bringing AT&T into it.
You seem to be forgetting the open jdk
The lack of a Free platform on which to run a Free program is called "Java trap" for historical reasons, just like a flash storage device is called a "drive" for historical reasons. It's by far not the only historical misnomer.
Actually the source is available it's just that if you want to compile and run it you have to pay the Apple developer fee. Most people would rather pay $2 than $90 to play the game. So the problem is the non free ethics that are forced upon you by Apple. Also the hardware platform is not very suitable for free software, but that is a sad trend with many devices.
Read the fucking post! He gave a link right there.
As much as we might love you for bringing a pretty cool old game to the very user-friendly Iphone, and being thoughtful about GPL in doing so, I'd like to see the correspondence with the original author or authors about this. I'm finding it difficult to believe that programmers as skilled and creative as these were could be so foolish as to believe that merely charging for the Iphone application, _as long as the source code is available_ under GPL, is a problem.
In fact, by making the less open projects on Iphones look like muddleware (which most cell phone apps are), in provide some very good GPL publicity.
However, the only valid interpretation of the "spirit" of the GPL is that of the FSF. They wrote it, thus they know what they intended. Any differing interpretations are just misinterpretations - just like this original xpilot author's mistaken belief that GPLv2 means a price of zero.
Actually that is royal bullshit. The only arbiter of the "spirit" of a contract is the court system. Everyone else is just whining about what the contract "should say". Including the FSF, which incidentally they did something about and created a new contract. They didn't just say "well the spirit really means this so do what we say".
It looks like the App Store says you are bound by the license that exists between the end-user and the third-party-product provider.
Looks like this means that the binary itself can be redistributed and Apple doesn't sublicense it, and that means it's just plain useless if the iPhone won't run it once it is redistributed. :) How amusing.
The spirit of the GPL is that the user can upgrade (for example with newer versions of the library) and modify the software.
The user of this game for the iphone will not be able to modify and upgrade the game, and re-distribute that new version. In order to be able to do that, you'd have to obtain a intel Mac, a developer license, a beta code to upload to your phone, etc,
and you can't redistribute anything without approval from Apple, which means that you have no rights
It seems to me that one doesn't need to solve some grand philosophical question to resolve this. The developer who objects would be within their rights to simply take the source, build the app, and put it at the App Store for free. No?
IANAL, but my reading of GPLv2 is that Apple violates the GPL by publishing apps compiled under GPL licenses (v2 or v3).
Apple requires that all applications on its platform are signed with a private key as part of their DRM system. The actual "object code" the end user receives is encrypted with this key (and a small bit of its own special DRM sauce, from what I hear). Therefore, under the GPL, Apple would be required to provide the key used to make this encrypted copy of the application, and the source to any other inlined (not linked) DRM code (that is, everything that constitutes part of the "source code" of Apple's 'derivative work' based on the GPL'ed app submitted by the developer). From the GPLv2:
For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable.
And to the commenters screaming "it's ok because it's GPLv2!", this would NOT require the "tivoization clause" covered by version 3 of the GPL (the requirement to provide "Installation Information" for a "User Product", because the applications in question are not part of the original User Product being sold in the first place, and so they wouldn't be covered.
The "operating system exception" (the one that provided the GPlv2 loophole for Tivo) doesn't cover the private key in an iPhone app, because the private key for a specific published app does not constitute any of "the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs".
Seems to me that a quick Cease and Desist letter to Apple from one of the original software's authors for failing to provide source to the encrypted object code would be all that's needed to settle the debate. Of course, Apple would probably err on the side of caution and pull the app anyway, rather than mess around with potentially defending themselves in court for a GPL violation on behalf of a lone developer.
The spirit of the GPL is that if someone doesn't like anything about your product, be it functionality, bugs, distribution methods or anything else, they can fork the project and do things their way.
For that reason I don't believe that the OP is not "in the spirit of GPL."
A number of years ago I went to my local news agency and bought a copy of Red Hat for ~AUD$30, perfectly legally and in the spirit of GPL. If it wasn't for that copy of Red Hat my entrance into the wonderful world of Linux, and by extension GPL, would've taken significantly longer. Sure there was a bit of documentation included that the distributor incurred costs for, but the OP incurred costs in bringing this GPL product to market too.
I am a little befuddled by those who claim that what you are doing is not in the spirit of the GPL. The fact that they aren't putting up some of their own dosh in order to release it in the App Store for free says something, though.
(Also, I am not a fan of GPLv3 as it removes freedom from software. Imho GPLv3 is not in the spirit of GPL)
If the original source code was released under the GPL with the consent of the original developers, and you have made your modified source code available to anyone who wants it under the GPL as well, you are in compliance with both the letter and the spirit of the GPL. Period, end of discussion.
Whether or not you charge for the binaries is irrelevant.
Regardless of the argument of which is better, your fundamental claim is incorrect - the GPL doesn't offer only symmetric freedoms. The original author of a GPL'd work is not limited by the GPL at all while downstream developers are.
The GPL is not an especially complex license, and it's quite clear that you can charge for copies of the software. People have been selling copies of GPLed software, either directly or more commonly attached to hardware, for a long, long time. The Free Software Foundation itself has sold copies of their software. You've met the letter of the GPL, and I believe the spirit. You've gone above and beyond the call of duty by making the software easily downloadable from your site. And you face the exact same challenge any other GPL publisher does: one of your users can download the source build it, and ship a no cost competitor. The original developer has lost nothing to you, indeed, he is free to take your changes for whatever purposes he wants. It's all good. You owe the original developers nothing other than appropriate credit and some thanks. Feel no guilt.
Search 2010 Gen Con events
I certainly agree with the general consensus here. Selling a GPLv2 program is fully legal and even has been encouraged by the FSF as a valid business model. From that angle, there is really nothing to be worried about.
On the other hand, I have to wonder if it's possible to fully comply with the GPLv2 with something sold through the apple store, given the following section of GPLv2:
==
The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable.
==
To fully comply, the developers selling a GPLv2 program would have to not only provide the source code but any scripts or tools used to "control compilation and installation of the executable". Unfortunately, a developer on the app store has no way to provide the tools used to control the installation of the executable on the iPod and iPhone because apple strictly controls the signing of the applications involved.
It's not as simple as saying "Jailbreak your ipod" either, because that's not how the program is being sold. If the program was originally sold/available through cydia, I would buy the jailbreak option.
You totally miss the spirit of the GPL. The spirit of the GPL is very specifically that the source code be available for use however anybody pleases. So:
1) Why are you complaining when people use the source code how they please? Making that possible was the whole point of the GPL.
2) He has made his source code available for other to use. So he is not only complying with the spirit but furthering it.
The original developers started with other people's GPL code. They are betraying the spirit of the GPL by trying to pressure him into not feeling free to use that work.
In fact, the GPL explicitly allows you to charge and the express reason is to recoup the cost of distribution which sounds like its exactly what you are doing. It isn't as if you are slipping through some hidden loophole in the license here to do something that isn't intended. There is nothing in the word or the spirit of the license that runs contrary to what you are doing, its not your fault if this guy contributed under the license without ever reading it...
... should have READ the GPL in the first place. It's absolutely fine to charge for packaging/compiling/etc.
Of course you have to release the new source code under the GPL, and anyone might, after that, recompile it, and sell it for $0 - if he wants to.
Basically, that's exactly the same what Novell, RedHat, ... do. Just with one program, not with thousands. But it remains the same thing. And I - as a 'GPL2-developer' myself - also don't see any ethical problems. Of course, there are some legal tidbits about the "how to install it without a developers licence" - but that's similar to i.e. any program based upon a proprietary language/toolkit/... - and you actually CAN compile and install the program, given that you are a registered apple iPhone developer. That's not much different than buying M$ Visual Studio 2009 Professional (~$800).
I think those people who say otherwise
a) don't like Apple in general - and from a free software perspective there ARE things that are not nice in Cupertino, it is impossible to deny that
b) might feel betrayed by anyone who sells GPL software in any way, because the STILL did not get the "not free as in beer"-concept. Which is basically a shame.
Because he wanted a poll to demonstrate that the original developer is being a dick. And he got it.
Go with it. The GPL is about freedom of the end-user to adapt the software, not the freedom to be a cheapskate.
As long as you're releasing source, it's in the spirit (and practice) of the license. If you're adding something to it, which you have by porting it, it's ethically defensible.
Sell it for whatever you want, it's yours to do whatever you want as long as you provide the source.
If they want to use the app store toolchain (and pay apple 99 bucks) they can, or they can down the free one, jailbreak their iPhones and run your game that way.
... please download the source code, recompile it, and put it in the app store.
After all, this is not MUCH more than an ad campaign. Considering that the developers MIGHT be able to read, and might be able to understand what they read - I figured out that detail of the GPL a long time ago, without lawyers, and without asking slashdot.
Let's start with a version for $1.99, and maybe someone will release a $0.00 version lateron. I'm pretty sure that will happen, so:
please don't expect to much revenue.
Charge for GPL? OMFG, Don't Tell Stallman... or he'll laugh you out of his IM session for naivete. As a number of posters have pointed out, people can and do charge money for GPL software all the time. Hell, if your iPhone app is GPL'ed, there's nothing stopping *me* from turning around and selling your app (but probably not via iTunes, Apple's got your back). As long as you provide a method for me to obtain the source for your app at something within shouting distance of the cost for you to provide it, you're good to go.
Luke, help me take this mask off
Apple is charging a fee for GPL applications and you are incurring other costs. Thats the problem.
The whole Apple iPhone format has some security and quality benefits - but the whole concept of a the App Store put me right off the phones.
All they need to do is open it up for arbitary apps, have some alternative security and it would be cool like OSX. Then I'd buy an handset (assuming it doesnt catch fire).
Oh, you mean the creator can do whatever, but whoever obtains a copy under the terms of the license (GPL in this case) are bound to follow the terms of the license?
Of course they are silly...
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
1) That's entirely not the point of the GPL. If an author truly wished for such an outcome they would use a BSD style license, not the GPL.
My
Perhaps it's just me, but haven't people been selling wrappers for such software on other platforms for years? Usually these wrappers are sold as a service that makes it easier to use the software pre-packaged in a binary form, allowing end users to benefit from it without needing to know how to compile binaries for themselves.
In the case of the iPhone, end users don't even have that option available to them without having to join apple's developer program or making potentially risky modifications their iPhone.
Paying someone to do such dirty work for them doesn't seem all that wrong if the primary purpose of OSS / GPL'd software is to make it available to anyone wishing to make use of it.
8==8 Bones 8==8
Where is the source code I can compile it and submit it to the store today.
Got Code?
The GPL is a license that was build to preserve freedom as defined here. An application on the iPhone is a direct violation of freedom 2:
You might blame the GPL for not being more clear on that (fixed in GPLv3), but the conflict between a locked down device like the iPhone and Free Software is very real.
But it should be free to make free apps and that is why jail breaking should be ok.
I thought Apple had banned GPL licensed SW from the App store....
We are the 198 proof..
I'm sorry to hear that you have one developer raising a stink. The GPL doesn't have any restrictions against charging for distribution. Hell, even Stallman used to charge to distribute GNU utilities and it was more than just the cost of shipping (time + media + shipping).
Or yet another example, Wolfenstein 3D was ported to the iPhone by ID Software. Keep in mind that this piece of software has been available as GPL'd source code for a number of years. ID Software didn't go back to the virgin code either, they found an open source project which had done a number of modifications, re-hacked it and then sold it on the Apple store. The source code for the iPhone app is available for download at no cost.
You've obviously had to lay out some money for the developer license and spent a fair amount of time on the port, so I don't think charging a couple of dollars violates the letter or the spirit of the GPL.
Now if you'd kindly get to work on porting NetHack to the iPhone, it would be appreciated.
I only need the Preview button when I haven't used the Preview button.
Yes, it seems obvious that the GPL provides asymmetric freedoms, but apparently the GP didn't realize it, so I explained it.
Wow, seriously, just wow. BSD is murder, fucking awesome. No wonder I love FreeBSD so much, I kill a kitten-of-the-sea every time I boot my pc.
BSD *is* less restrictive than GPL it does not force inclusion, it doesn't give you any rights over the original BSD code, only rights over your own version. Someone cannot kill a BSD project by making it proprietary. The main project is still out there, the fact that it might not have that nifty cool feature you'd love because someone wants 19.99 for it is irrelevant. BSD and GPL are two different ideologies. Neither is right/ethical/moral but BSD *is* less restrictive than GPL, that is just straight up facts not opinions or ethereal bullshit made up analogies. Whether you define those fewer restrictions as 'less free' because its fucking murder is between you and your psychiatrist.
The Goal: A long simple life filled with many complex toys.
I have never seen a /. discussion go so long while staying on-topic (and mostly thoughtful & informative!). Usually these things veer off into bizarro-world tangents within a few dozen posts. Cue the voice of Cat Deely saying "Great job, you guys!"
Selling the code this way incurs certain obligations. One of them is that you MUST maintain the availability of the source code at a defined location for 3 years after the last sale. (I think I'd three years. It's been awhile since I checked.)
There's nothing about the GPL that says you can't sell the code for whatever price you can find buyers. It just says that those buyers must have access to the source code, and if you don't always ship the source code with the product, that you must maintain such access for 3 years after your final sale. (Well, there's lots of other details, but that's the essence.)
Personally, I'd prefer to always provide the source code with the application, and if I couldn't do that, I wouldn't distribute it that way, but that's my choice. And anyway you no longer have that option. (Judging by the above comments, you couldn't have shipped the source code as a part of each purchase, but I'm not certain that this is correct.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
If you're not comfortable charging for distribution, you can always open some e-currency account and accept donations. If your concerned about profiting from the work of others, contribute those profits to organizations that support and defend F/OSS. -kf
I can't wait for your next boring story:
The Ethics of Selling Linux Distributions For Computers.
When will the drivel end?
I hate to kill your thread; however, ethics or not, I can legally SELL Linux distribution BECAUSE there is no restriction against selling in the GPL.
Yours In Fascism,
Kilgore Trout
Article Author: please submit the following URL to the XPilot copyright holder:
Free-software-is-OK-to-sell
In it, Richard Stallman (some of us would know him as the freaking author of the GPL) states that selling free software is OK provided the source code is also available and redistributable per the GPL (which you seem to be following this just fine). If this XPilot copyright holder would like to presume that he has a better understanding of the intent of the GPL than the freaking author of the license, tell him to hit himself with a clue bat. If the XPilot copyright holder intended that his software should have always been distributed for free, he should have used a different licensing agreement. His little moralistic crusade has no legs regarding the GPL.
B.S. - the original developers ought to have read the GPL before releasing the code under it. The GPL explicitly allows for sale of derivative binaries so long as an offer for the code is made available. One may even charge reasonable distribution costs for the code when customers take them up on the offer for the code. Now, the "reasonable" fee for the code is open to debate, but whether or not binaries could/should be sold is not as the GPL is crystal-clear on the matter.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
The point of the GPL is to keep open source open, and to give credit where credit is due in terms of reused code... There is nothing ethically wrong with making a profit from GPL'd code. to quote from the GNU GPL foundations... "Nobody should be restricted by the software they use. There are four freedoms that every user should have: * the freedom to use the software for any purpose, * the freedom to change the software to suit your needs, * the freedom to share the software with your friends and neighbors, and * the freedom to share the changes you make." The original developer is probably just upset that he/she didnt make money from it...
The purpose of the GPL was to ensure that a distributor of software release source and if they made any changes, that they release the source to those changes. The GPL was meant to ensure that the person have the freedom to know what the software contains and to modify and re-release if they choose to do so. The GPL in no way prevents or discourages anyone from selling a GPL licensed product. In fact, the GPL specifically states one may charge any fee they want for the application as long as they make access to the source available either with the sale or at a nominal charge from some other point if it's necessary to copy it. If you make the source available as part of the application, your responsibility under the GPL has been completely complied with, and you are entitled to charge whatever the traffic will bear.
If they don't like it, they should have written their own license that requires source release and prohibits charging. As it is, under the GPL you can charge anything you want and the people who originally released it have no right to object. You've got expenses, and for that matter, if you want to make a small profit - or even a large one - you're perfectly entitled to do so.
Nobody says a goddamn word when Redhat or Suse makes millions reselling a large collection of open source applications without paying the developers anything at all. Of course, Redhat does spend several million a year contributing code to the Linux distribution that everyone also gets to use, but that's beside the point; no one objects to Redhat making a huge profit, and if you can make something off a released GPL application and comply with the license, more power to you, and tell those whiners that the purpose of the GPL was to ensure protection of the user's freedom, not protection of obtaining something for nothing,
-----
Paul Robinson <paul@paul-robinson.us> - My Blog
The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
The BSD-style license doesn't guarantee that people can use the source code how they please because it doesn't guarantee access to the source code. The GPL license guarantees that nobody can be given just the binary. It is specifically about ensuring that anyone who uses the binary has access to the source.
What stops people from distributing copies of the source code? The GPL is about free and open *source* code. You are quite free to obtain and distribute the source code.
Again, the spirit of the GPL is specifically access to and freedom to use *source* *code*. Period.
You should really read the thread at a high threshold (I usually choose 4). People touched upon all the important point. Being first and foremost: There is no problem or any violation of spirit selling GPL'd software. I think it is pretty interesting that a seasoned open source developer has missed such a basic point about the GPL.
There are issues with the appstore and putting GPL'd software (for free or at a price, doesn't matter) on it. Those are addressed in GPLv3 and are also already covered in this thread.
Is it even legal to put GPLv3 software on appstore anyways?
What stops people from distributing copies of the source code?
What good is source code when you can't compile and run it? How do you help your neighbor when the binary you have is completely useless for him?
Free Software is about freedom, the DRM on the iPhone is there to prevent people from exercising the freedom that the GPL gives them.
Apple denies users freedom to tinker.
The fact that you can buy a tinkering permit for 99$ doesn't change this.
I suppose that no one got the real issue.
- Who distribute the application to users? AppStore
- Who own AppStore? Apple
So, reading the GPL2, Apple has some obligations. Like : 'Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your...' (from GPLv2)
The point is that I really doubt you are allowed to submit apps to AppStore if the simply distribution of them gives Apple some obligations, and makes it liable if they don't.
You are distributing the source code, as required, and therefore you are legally in the clear.
With respect to charging for the binaries, that is permitted by the license. I would however argue that this is bad form, and against the community spirit. The GPL is intended to benefit users and developers, and restrictions (e.g. a monetary charge, however nominal) on the access to binaries restricts the user community to those able or willing to pay or to rebuild. Rebuilding is a hassle, and subject to Apples $99 yearly charge at a minimum for anyone wishing to load it onto a iPhone device.
While I understand you wish to recoup the costs of porting and new feature development, I believe it is morally wrong to charge for a program that is free (in beer, and in speech) on the original platform(s) after porting it.
While the GPL permits charging for binaries, I believe it is uncommon and undesirable for free source code not to be matched by free access to the generated binaries of the program.
Can GPL iPhone apps exist?
http://diveintomark.org/archives/2008/03/07/iphone-gpl
You're right about this - you can distribute it as long as the source is available. The GPL was never and will never be about free as in beer, it's about being able to verify, to persistently use, and to extend the software you have.
You can charge $1,000,000 for the first copy, if you want - and if you can get someone to pay. But they'll be free to take the source you give them and redistribute copies for $50,000... or for $0.
--
Even if the App Store might now allow a clone app from your source, they would certainly (as certainly as any other App Store submission) allow an app with new levels, or one targeted at blind users (somehow!) or etc. Or maybe someone wants to make it into a psych test. More likely, if you vanish and someone wants to take advantage of iPhone 4.0 features when they come out.
The PRIME scenario is that users are never encumbered by the lack of source or lack of permissions, EXCEPT that they have to pass that forward.
That's what it's about, guaranteeing innovation and stability.
--
Oh, and everyone ELSE's opinions about the GPL should be based on the text. It was carefully constructed so that you could violate the "spirit" of it without violating the letter of it. So if you and he can find an attorney you both trust, the letter of the GPL DOES tell you the spirit of it.
Looking for freelance Actionscript (Flash/Flex) or ColdFusion work and/or freelance developers. Email me, put Slashdot
Here is a reality check for you. The majority of end users are neither sys admins or developers.
BSD and similar licenses provides the free access for end users to functionality derived from an open source project in either a free flavour or a non-free flavour which might be charged for and possibly include additional functionality and usability improvements from non-open source code or libraries. That is true freedom of choice of the end users who are generally not coders.
BSD and similar licenses do not force developers to return all changes back to the project. This can make a great deal of sense in a lot of cases. Let's say that I have a fork of code for another OS but it order for it to work seamlessly in that other OS or to meet some security requirement for the defence department, I have to use a proprietary third-party extension, how would releasing the code back into the project benefit anyone? It simply would not help the general community at all.
Developers involved in a BSD project will make contributions back into the main source tree if the change moves the project forward for the majority. That is true freedom as there is no compulsion to do so.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
The FSF's position: selling free software (i.e., charging for distribution of copies) is A-OK.
You've got the blessing of the Free Software Foundation. Sell, baby, sell!
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
What good is source code when you can't compile and run it? How do you help your neighbor when the binary you have is completely useless for him?
Free Software is about freedom, the DRM on the iPhone is there to prevent people from exercising the freedom that the GPL gives them.
Nothing about the GPL guarantees that you will find the source code useful. What it does guarantee is that if you have the binary, you will have access to the source code. That is its spirit. It is about open *source*, not open platforms or hardware.
What good is it? Well, for one thing, you can take all of part of it to an open platform, if you want to.
The GPL doesn't guarantee that you'll be able to help your neighbor either. But it does guarantee that the source will be open, so that if the source is useful to your neighbor, you can give it to him.
This is about open *source*. Really. That's the spirit of the GPL.
It is not about open platforms, open binaries, useful source, or the like.
The fact that the GPLv3 deviated from that principle is one of the reasons that a lot of people who like GPLv2 don't like GPLv3. Of course, it's also the reason a lot of people who didn't like the GPLv2 like the GPLv3.
The GPLv3 is not a better job of expressing the same spirit as the GPLv2. It reflects a significant change in what the spirit of the GPL actually is. And a lot of people who picked the GPLv2 and donated code under it believed in the old spirit.
As for the DRM on the iPhone preventing people from exercising the freedoms the GPL gives them, which freedom would that be exactly? I don't see where the GPL say anything about being able to use open source on a closed platform. The GPL freedoms are availability of source code and the ability to modify that source code and put it on the open platform of your choice.
A prohibition against closed platforms, in fact, would be totally against the spirit of the GPL. The GPL is about being able to do *whatever* you want with the source code, even lock it down or use it on closed platforms. (With others free to unlock it or move it to open platforms, of course.)
The GPL defines source code as:
I don't quite see how that allows to keep part of the build process secret as is the case with the AppleApp store. Now of course a lawyer might see that different, but arguing that this is totally compatible with the spirit of the GPL is just ridiculous. The GPL is there to allow modification and that of course includes the ability to actually compile the source back into a working executable.
"The GPL is there to allow modification and that of course includes the ability to actually compile the source back into a working executable."
Sure, on open platforms. The GPL is not about opening hardware nor is about using software to pry open platforms. (This was an explicit decision, by the way. It was specifically decided not to make any attempt to pry open closed hardware.)
The spirit of the GPLv2 is that the source code be open. Full stop.
This blog sums this debate up nicely. http://feronia-solutions.blogspot.com/2009/08/open-source-licensing-iphone-apps-and.html
I know it'd be slow compiling, but I'm surprised this hasn't been ported yet... or has it?
For the CopyLeft software, the original should set the standard. To be true to their concept, you must not charge for this game. If your intention is just to cover costs, then ask for donations. Perhaps, you could publish a free version of the standard game, then publish an upgrade to your top version for $3. Divide your work from the original. Your project should be set up to sustain the game, but not profit off the original author's code. The concept of GPL and GNU/copy-left is to create infinitely useful tools that cost nothing. Not-for-profit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License
"The spirit of GPL" .. you mean the one that says it's ok to charge for derrived products as long as you provide source? Sounds like somebody's got a case of the 'Nobody should profit from my work'. Should have thought of that before you GPL'd the code.
One thing to note, as I've been seeing a lot in the embedded world.. GPL only stipulates that you need to make source available (on request) to people/customers you redistribute to. That is to say if you have a "commercial" product with GPL code that only is distributed to people who pay you -- the only people who have the right to the derived source code are those customers -- not even the original author has the 'right' unless she's a paying customer.
Of course nothing stops them from turning around and posting the tree on sourceforge, (think: RedHat->CentOS), but the additional tricks end up being 'support' contracts to keep up to date.. Expect to see more of this in the future.
If you want to make sure nobody makes money except you -- don't GPL your code.
If you want to really make your code free: release it into the public domain.
But don't be surprised when your GPL code ends up on a semi-hidden webpage viewable by 'customers' only and ends up in a commercial product.