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."
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.
Agreed, If you've provided the link to your site in the released game with the information that the source is available, then you've complied with the GPL. If you're really bothered, then donate the profits to an Open Source game development. But personally, I think $2 is a perfectly reasonable fee for a decent game. If I don't want to pay the fee, I can grab the source and compile it for myself.
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.
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.
Not only that, but anyone who has a problem with the price is free to download the code and put it up for a lower price, free, whatever they want. Which is, of course, the spirit of the GPL.
Even better, this GPL'd code can be used as a basis for other GPL apps. The barrier to get more software up there is lowered. I say, thanks for putting this up there! Online games that can be played over 3G are sadly rare, hopefully this makes it a little easier to put more of them up and I can finally get some excitement on the crapper.
<xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
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'!"
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
'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.
Agreed.
' I am more thinking that the people who are angry are jealous that they did not think of it first.' ...or, another possibility: the author of the original XPilot appears to have a legitimate (but not legally protected) vision of the legacy of his work, and is trying to protect it/disguise it behind his (clearly flawed) interpretation of the GPL.
It would be much better if the author just communicated that his wish would be to have software based on his own be free-as-in-beer, acknowleding that the new authors are under no legal obligation to do so. The authors of this new software are legally free to do whatever they want, including telling the original author to piss off. Would they feel morally comfortable about doing so, is the real question? This is really a moral and/or friendship dispute, not a legal one.
Because A) It restricts you to an -expensive- platform, x86 Mac OS X B) I believe you need to pay Apple I think like $99 to get it on the app store
I might be completely incorrect or misinformed, but I would also imagine that if someone were to submit a duplicate of an existing app for free, even if it were perfectly legal, that Apple would not allow it. Stranger things have happened.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
With the iPhone you cannot redistribute the program for free.
You appear to be confusing free as in speech and free as in beer.
The GPL does not mandate that redistribution be free as in beer. As a matter of fact, it repeatedly accounts for fees associated with redistribution, yes?
Perhaps you can point at the specific clause that declares paying $99/yr or whatever to get your binaries signed for distribution is a violation? Didn't think so.
Guess what; you can't compile Linux without a computer either.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
By the way, at the time I looked into iphone development, there was a non disclosure agreement that prevented you from publishing your sources. Is it still active? How are you supposed to comply with the GPL under NDA? Does that preclude you from using any GPL code?
He's not obligated to provide the SDK license, nor is he obligated to provide access to the AppStore. He's obligated to redistribute the GPL'd source code which he is. Hell, he could charge another $2.99 for the ability to download the source code if he wanted and that's all perfectly fine. Also, you are seriously confusing the concept of the why GPL'd source code is free. It's not free as in there is no cost. It's free in that you will always have access to the source and the ability to modify it as you see fit, so long as you also extend that freedom on to others.
Just because it's GPL does not mean it's also $0.00.
The submitter has done absolutely nothing wrong, and the original dev shouldn't have released the source under the GPL if he felt that the app should never be charged for. He should have released it under a non commercial license that explicitly restricted the sale of the software.
'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).
The answer to this is simple: If you don't like the terms of the GPL V2, you should not have released your code under those terms. To quote 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."
Provided they are in compliance with every other part of the GPL, the fact that you don't think they are the appropriate vendor is irrelevant; get over yourself.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
How are you defining "usable" here? If I download the "normal" XPilot source I cannot do f all with it either unless I have GCC, make and X11. Should the makers of the original XPilot be required to come to my home and install all of these
You get the source. What you actually can or cannot do with it is not their problem, and never has been. That you then need a Mac and XCode to build the iPhone version does NOT restrict any freedoms. There is no virality in the GPL that says that you need to use GPL-ed compilers, editors or operating systems to build from the source.