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."

Comments

Yes

[sakdoctor]

Yes it's fine

Re:Yes

[akgoel]

+1. GPL'd software can be ethically sold if the source is available. Head out to Fry's and check out the shelves of Linux distributions and OpenOffice packages available for sale even though they are free to download.

It's been like that since I can remember.

Re:Yes

[whiting]

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.

Re:Yes

[TheRaven64]

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.

Re:Yes

[heson]

If you feel bad about getting filthy rich, use the money to hire coders (prolly yourself) to port more stuff and maybe even develop new stuff. GPL is all about win-win business, if someone think it's too expensive they fork.

Re:Yes

[19thNervousBreakdown]

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.

Re:Yes

[firl]

I don't think you understand the appstore. I can not download the source, recompile it, package it and put it up on the app store as it exactly is. If the appstore wasn't governed then maybe what you are saying would be true.

Re:Yes

[Nasarius]

I believe you can download the iPhone SDK and run it on the included emulator without paying anything.

But I mean, you could make the same sort of argument about GPL'd software for Windows. You need to pay for the Windows license before you can run it. The application code is free; the platform is another matter entirely.

Re:Yes

[NoOneInParticular]

Good point! In particular, you can tell the whining original dev that he can pony up 99 bucks to free his app if he finds this so important.

Re:Yes

[benob]

That also makes the point that you *need* to pay for a mac and a developer license if you want to compile the application for your iphone. You are jailed once again.

Re:Yes

[edmicman]

But why couldn't you download the source, compile it, sign up yourself to be able to submit apps to the app store, submit your own version, and charge nothing for it? That's the whole point, no?

Re:Yes

[Darkness404]

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.

Re:Yes

[coolgeek]

There are no inherent platform restrictions, take the code and compile it for another platform, as the GPL empowers you to do.

Re:Yes

[harlows_monkeys]

Under the GPLv2 you are obliged to provide the source code to anyone that asks for them

FUD. under GPLv2, if you distribute binaries, you are given three options as to providing source code. One of those options is to provide source code with the binary. Another option is to provide a written offer to provide source to anyone who asks. The third option is an obscure case that is irrelevant here.

If you go with the first option, and distribute the source with the binary, you do NOT have to provide source to third parties who ask for it.

Re:Yes

[harlows_monkeys]

Not with out a mac and a $99 devel fee.

No, all you need is a Mac and the free iPhone SDK. With that, you can compile the app, and run it on the iPhone simulator on your Mac.

You only need to pay $99 if you want to run the app on your phone or put it up on the app store.

Re:Yes

[obarthelemy]

the code is available for download from their project site. that's where your can get the code, not from apple's appstore. there's no requirement that the source be distributed along each and every excutable, only that it be "available", which it is.

Re:Yes

[Sebilrazen]

I have 4 iPhones (mom, dad, brother and self) tied to my iTunes account and can sync a downloaded app to all of them.

Re:Yes

[History's Coming To]

Imagine if you had an app on the iPhone which you could use to visit ordinary web pages and download the source.....and another which you could use to electronically send the source to other people. That would be cool....

Re:Yes

[keytoe]

I don't think you understand the appstore. I can not download the source, recompile it, package it and put it up on the app store as it exactly is. If the appstore wasn't governed then maybe what you are saying would be true.

Sure you can - you just have to have a Mac to do the compilation, pay the $99 developer fee for your certificate and submit it for whatever price you deem fit. The point of this whole discussion is that the code is still free and this team is following the letter as well as the spirit of the GPL. Anyone who wants can download the code and do with it whatever they want - including directly competing with these guys.

Of course, if you did all that and paid the developer fee, you may want to charge a nominal fee in order to recoup your outlay. Say, two or three bucks?

Re:Yes

[Bandman]

I disagree on the ethics. They've made the source code available, and as many other commenters here have mentioned, anyone is free to jump through the very same hoops that these developers did to publish the software, or they're free to make it available gratis via one of the jailbreak sources.

You are applying an ethical argument against the platform to the developers who are writing software for it...and developers who are bending over backwards to help the community.

Re:Yes

[amicusNYCL]

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.

Re:Yes

[aristotle-dude]

It is available, yes. But it is not really usable with the full freedoms of the GPL. While this may be legal for use under the GPL, I would consider this very unethical.

What freedom would that be? Software that is BSD licensed is free without restrictions whereas 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. That is a restriction on freedom.

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. How is this situation different?

Re:Yes

[amicusNYCL]

I think $2 is a perfectly reasonable fee for a decent game.

Not only is it reasonable, but it's almost expected to be asked for compensation for porting the game to a new platform. It sounds like he's not charging for the game itself, he's charging for the work in porting it if you want to play it on the iPhone. That sounds completely reasonable to me.

Re:Yes

[Snocone]

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.

Re:Yes

[weicco]

Also, I'm not too familiar with how the iPhone SDK works, but if if involves dynamically linking your application to close-source libraries provided by Apple, lots of people would consider it to be violating the spirit (if not the letter) of the GPL.

This is an honest question, not FUD or anything. Can you link binary made from GPL'd code dynamically to non-GPL'd library? I would guess yes.

And another question. If you need iPhone SDK (or whatever) from Apple to compile your GPL'd code to binary, are you linking anything statically from the SDK? And if yes, is SDK GPL'd and if not, isn't this in violation of the GPL? Here I would guess that SDK isn't GPL'd and this is a violation of the license.

I like to dabble with legal questions so I honestly would like to know :)

Re:Yes

[amicusNYCL]

Well, yes. But you can't install it on your iPhone unless you jailbreaked the device or you pay the yearly $99 developer fee.

So what?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that if you really cared about the "spirit of the GPL" and free software in the first place, that you wouldn't have given Apple your money for their extremely closed device. If the choice is between iPhone and Android, I think it's abundantly clear to anyone that cares about free software that Android is already a much, much more open platform than the iPhone will ever be.

All of this whining over the "ethics" of selling GPL software for the iPhone is just hypocritical nonsense. If you were concerned about free software ethics you wouldn't have an iPhone.

("you" in the general sense of course)

Re:Yes

[mwvdlee]

Guess what; you can't compile Linux without a computer either.

Re:Yes

[benob]

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?

Re:Yes

[Raffaello]

The GPL gives the end user the right to the source if that end user pays for the app/product. It doesn't guarantee the end user any rights wrt re-deployment on specific commercial platforms beyond the right to the source code. Any issues that arise wrt re-deployment are the end user's to deal with, not the distributing developer. As long as the developer is making the source available to purchasers, then the developer is in compliance.

Read the GPL itself; it is very instructive. Nowhere does it require that the developer/distributor make any sorts of guarantees to the buyer/end user about how easy it will be for the end user to redistribute a re-compilation beyond the requirement that the source be provided in "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it."

The important bit here is that "The 'Corresponding Source' for a work in object code form means all the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to control those activities." [emphasis added]

Note that this is not "all the developer permissions from Apple needed to run the object code," just "all the source code." Think about it; 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.

Re:Yes

[severoon]

Would the original developer prefer his work stay dead forever? Why didn't the original developer do something with it himself? Why doesn't he do something with it now? Why is he complaining, and why are you talking about it?

Re:Yes

[Jafafa Hots]

I've just always wondered just where it is people are getting all this free beer.

Re:Yes

[madsenj37]

The best part about the GPL is that it allows code to be modified and run anywhere, closed platform, obscure platform, new platform, etc. As long as code is properly released, they can sell it without moral implications. If you do not like it, repackage it yourself, eat the costs and make the game better or worse as you see fit. These men did spend time on developing it for a new platform and should be able to be paid for their efforts, assuming the market wants their product.

Re:Yes

[hpa]

This is an example of tivoization. It's legal with GPLv2. It is illegal with GPLv3. You can argue back and forth if it is moral, but I think you find that it's a very grey area under the circumstances.

Re:Yes

[Captain Spam]

It is quite usable with the full freedoms of the GPL. Though it would most likely take a decent amount of porting to convert Objective-C to Java*, I could take the code they provide, modify it, and re-release it for the Android Marketplace, and I could release it for free or for a price. A Windows Mobile programmer could port it to their platform. A Palm Pre programmer could port it to their platform. They could do it all without even the slightest restriction from Apple or the iPhone. Another iPhone programmer could modify it and re-release it, even.

Apple making restrictions on their platform does not in any way make restrictions on other platforms. We could take, modify, and port it if we wanted (and didn't instead just directly port from the original XPilot source). That is in the spirit of the GPL. The fact that the author chose to make it for and release it on a platform with restrictions doesn't change that.

*: To the purists: Fine, fine, to whatever Android's specific Java-lookalike is.

Re:Yes

[mdwh2]

By that logic, GPL-derived software that's locked under a software patent is still free, as you simply have to pay them the fee to use the patent.

The FSF disagreed, however.

Re:Yes

[terjeber]

That's absurd. So you are saying I can't sell my App on Fry's because the day you go there it may be closed, the parking lot may be full or, heavens forbid, they might deny you access to their store (which they are in their full right to do).

Re:Yes

[centuren]

His point was that the app store is governed - you have no idea whether Apple will ever let your app make it into the actual store (see Google Voice). They might perfectly well say that it is an exact duplicate of a for-pay app, and it is therefore rejected. Remember, Apple takes 30%, so it's in their best interest to put more apps behind the pay wall. And we already know that Apple can reject any app for any reason (FCC inquiries notwithstanding).

More specifically, I think he was pointing out that Apple might treat forks as duplicates, leaving the initial submitters the only ones able to earn money for the software on that platform, regardless of the source being available. That said, I think what they're doing is all right, as they are keeping the source available.

One thing to add: if the original author had said "That's great, nice work!" when it first came up, this wouldn't have been an issue for this project. I recommend not putting too much (if any) stock in what the original author thinks. There will always be people with different views on how open source projects should be handled, and plenty of bickering about it. If we didn't have licenses like the GPL which spell out how code can be used, and instead had to get the author's permission, open source software would never have progressed as far as it has.

Of course, if you're feeling guilty, you could always invest any extra money you make into developing a version for Android, or make a donation to some project that needs it.

Re:Yes

[bledri]

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

A) $199: Apple Mac Mini Intel Core Duo Processor 1.66 Ghz 607LLA on aBay, free shipping.
B) True, but GPL is about Freedom, not freebeer, nor a free redistribution and marketing channel. I know you were just referring to a barrier for putting it on the app store as a free app, but I think a lot of people are confusing "Freedom" with "it shouldn't cost me any money for things that are completely out of the software developer's control."

Re:Yes

[LordVader717]

While I do understand the worries, taking this to it's logical conclusion would be to dictate what platforms developers can make GPL software for, and make it much dependant on the manufacturers.
There are GPL apps that are exclusively for Windows, and for .NET, which of course have restrictions by Microsoft.

Re:Yes

[donny77]

And you have to buy a PC and $150-$300 windows license to compile it for windows. What's the difference?

Re:Yes

[statusbar]

The spirit of the GPL does not matter. All that matters is the reality of the license.

From the GPLv2:

When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things.

Even though apple sends goons who force you to sign papers , strip search you, and take your lunch money in order to download binaries to a real iphone, that has no bearing on the freedom of the source code. The GPLv2 or GPLv3 explicitly allows anyone to sell GPL'd binaries as long as they make the source code available to anyone at no more than your cost of duplication and shipping.

Imagine I personally create a handheld prototype hardware device and port Xpilot to it. There are only two of these made and cost me $2000 each to manufacture these prototypes. I sell one of the device with Xpilot in it. I include a CD with the Xpilot source code with the device. If anyone else wants to compile Xpilot on my prototype device, they would have to buy one from me. They would have to pay me more than $2000 to make it worth my while to bother. And if I say no, I'm not building them anymore because I want to backpack around the world now, am I violating the 'Spirit' of the GPL because I distributed the binaries and sources for a platform which is no longer available? And how would this scenario be different if apple decided to stop selling iphone SDKs? Are you requiring apple's SDK to be open source? or requiring apple's hardware to be open source? why don't you require your intel motherboard to have an open source BIOS as well, seeing that you can't play Xpilot on a PC without paying some BIOS company like Pheonix for the right to boot your computer.

If the XPilot authors did not want anyone selling their software they should have used a different license.

Perhaps the GPLv4 will have an explicit anti-apple clause.

--jeffk++

Re:Yes

[toriver]

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.

Re:Yes

[Knuckles]

(the text of the GPL is public domain)

Bzzzt!

GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE

Version 2, June 1991

Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA

Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.

    -- GPL v2

What you can do is to

use the GPL terms (possibly modified) in another license provided that you call your license by another name and do not include the GPL preamble, and provided you modify the instructions-for-use at the end enough to make it clearly different in wording and not mention GNU (though the actual procedure you describe may be similar).

If you want to use our preamble in a modified license, please write to for permission.

. But the fSF discourages it because such changed versions "are almost certainly incompatible with the GPL."

Re:Yes

[toriver]

The $99 (which in practice is the price of the code signing certificate they give you) is only for distributing the BINARIES on the App Store.

It is NOT AT ALL required to distribute the SOURCE, or to build it from the source (you just need the free registration to download the SDK - provided you have a modern Mac from the outset of course).

Re:Yes

[DJRumpy]

I don't understand this reasoning. The source is freely available. If you don't like it, compile it for whatever platform you like. If there is effort involved, perhaps you won't feel the need to give it away free, perhaps you will, but anyone else can also do the same. There is no issue if the source is available (it is). Just because they ported it through their own work to iPhone doesn't make it any less free, it just means that someone was nice enough to take the time to port it.

The spirit of GPL is not to prevent someone for profiting for their time. As someone already pointed out, there are many distributions of Linux where they charge for the media, support, etc. This is no different as these guys will most certainly have support issues, as well as costs to get it into the app store, and personal time spent porting it. If you don't like the price or the platform, then download the source and compile it for something else.

Where's the beef?

Re:Yes

[kelnos]

I agree with you, but out of the bit you quoted, there's an interesting bit: "... all the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work) run the object code..." (emphasis mine).

One might be able to make the argument that providing source code and build files isn't enough, because you can't distribute the "means" to get it on an actual iPhone, since that requires an extra fee, and Apple's approval.

I don't really agree with that interpretation, but this is contract/licensing law... I'd bet a lawyer could twist that in his favor.

As for the *actual* question that the article asks, as to whether this is all *ethical*, I'd say yes, it is. Good for him for taking the effort to port something valuable to the iPhone, and good for him for complying with the GPL and releasing all the modifications. The money he's charging for the app seems certainly justified: doing all this stuff does require time and money, and if people are willing to pay for the app which helps him recoup these costs, great. The fact that the original developer doesn't like this is a shame, but is pretty damned irrelevant. It's his fault for not picking a license that disallows selling modified versions of his app.

Re:Yes

[neonsignal]

Parent makes an important point. This is especially relevant for companies that are writing customized software for a single client. You can use GPL and still keep the software secret from third parties. The GPL does not force distribution, it allows it.

It is FUD like that in the grandparent post that puts small companies off using the GPL (because they don't have in-house lawyers to wade through the scaremongering), and instead use restrictive 'contracts'. In turn, this means customers of these small companies are often left without control of source code for software that is vital to the customer's business.

---
I am not a lawyer, so yes, my advice does apply to your specific circumstances, but you would be foolish to take my word for it...

Re:Yes

[SwabTheDeck]

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?

It has been quite some time since this NDA has been lifted, which is why there are plenty of books and tutorials readily available for anyone to buy/read (this wasn't the case when the SDK was first released). These publications generally contain a healthy dose of source code, so obviously it's fine to share. The only significant NDA that still exists regarding the iPhone SDK only covers beta releases of the SDK, which are only available to people who have signed up for the paid developer program.

Re:Yes

[kelnos]

Perhaps you missed my "I agree," which were the first two words of my post. I do believe that the porters have fulfilled the terms of the GPL; I was merely pointing out that I can see how it might be a bit murky.

Now, however, if it were the case that you couldn't fulfill the terms of the GPL with app-store-released iPhone apps, then, correct, you wouldn't be able to release GPLed software for the iPhone at all. That's kinda how it works: either you comply with the license, or you don't release at all.

So then, yes, if the fact that Apple's approval is required for distribution meant that the GPL's terms were not fulfilled, then you could not write GPLed iPhone apps, as the original author or otherwise.

I'm not claiming that's the case though. In my useless non-lawyer opinion, I do believe you can distribute iPhone apps and fulfill the terms of the GPL.

On a side note, I'm also a bit confused by your bolded portion: whether or not the app is sold for $0 or $100 is entirely irrelevant to whether or not the GPL's terms have been satisfied.

Re:Yes

[DLG]

Ditto. I am betting xpilot was sold as parts of distributions since it first started. If he had wanted to control the usage of the software to prevent others from selling it, he should not have used the GPL. As long as you are providing source code, you are in the right. The fact that it requires someone to pay 99 dollars to bring your source code into an executible object on the iPhone is no different than saying they have to buy a computer to do so. You are, in fact giving away the code, and also charging for a distributed binary. I am pretty sure that this is entirely conventional.

More importantly, you are contributing to the iPhone developer community by letting us see how you were able to port the code. This is helpful both in allowing enhanced versions, and as a learning tool.

Thank you,

Re:Yes

[GooberToo]

That's not the author's issue. The new publisher is perfectly entitled, even under the GPL, to be compensated for distribution costs, overhead of running the server, and/or the service of porting it to a new platform. That is, in fact, entirely the spirit behind the GPL. The point of the GPL is to make money off of related services rather than the software it self; thusly freeing software and still allowing developer's to be compensated for their work, should they so desire. In this case, the related service is creating the port, making the actual port available, and providing a server infrastructure to allow for multiplayer games. The asking price is very reasonable.

He needs to tell the author to piss off. If he doesn't like people honoring both the letter and the intent of the GPL, he should have released it under a different license.

No ethical problem at all

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:No ethical problem at all

[Animaether]

For now, anyway.

Remember when TiVo went by the letter of the GPL (v2) but not the apparent spirit? A new section of GPL v3 was born.

I'm not saying that in the future, a GPLvN -will- exist that includes terms regarding sale of GPL(vN)'ed software - but in the given case, why wouldn't there be.

Sure, the source to this game is available. Hooray for every other iPhone developer. However, if you're not a developer, you can't just install it on your device even if you compile it.

In addition, -if- a developer were to pick up the code and compile it.. they, in turn, can't distribute it outside of the iTunes store. ( I seem to recall Apple being okay with source code distribution when it concerns GPL - but a Google search seems to bring up lots of (old) blog posts about it being prohibited. )

On top of that, there's probably little chance that it would be accepted into the iTunes store, seeing as it's a 1:1 duplicate of an existing app.

Re:No ethical problem at all

[Blakey Rat]

Remember when TiVo went by the letter of the GPL (v2) but not the apparent spirit? A new section of GPL v3 was born.

And do you remember the huge, long, debate over whether what Tivo did really *did* violate the "spirit"? I don't think it did, and I think the GPLv3 is an overreaction to a complete non-issue. Even if you do acknowledge there is such a thing as a "spirit" to the contract, you still have to recognize that there are as many different interpretations of that "spirit" as their are users of it.

Re:No ethical problem at all

[J. T. MacLeod]

He's talking about reinterpreting the document at whim.

The US Constitution was ratified through the proper channels to rectify this. It wasn't just a matter of some one saying "it's a living document, so we'll just interpret it to mean whatever we want it to say".

Re:No ethical problem at all

[FutureDomain]

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." - 14th Amendment.

This is the only thing the constitution says about "black people". In the constitution itself, slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person for purposes of determining congressional districts. It never stated that "black people" were somehow less than human or even that slaves "where 3/5 of a person", just that slaves were counted that way to determine congressional districts, which was the result of a compromise. There were many African Americans in the U.S. who were not slaves, had full rights of citizens, and were counted as a whole person in congressional districts. As of the 14th amendment, former slaves also have the full rights of citizens.

Please stop the racist thinking and start treating everyone as decent human beings until they prove themselves otherwise.

Re:No ethical problem at all

[GigaplexNZ]

I'm not saying that in the future, a GPLvN -will- exist that includes terms regarding sale of GPL(vN)'ed software - but in the given case, why wouldn't there be.

Because RMS himself says it is acceptable to charge money for GPL software as long as the terms are followed. It's not something he dislikes and feels the need to remove like the TiVo incident.

Re:No ethical problem at all

[slux]

So if you find a loophole in the law that lets you get away with murder you'd have no problem doing it? There's something to be said for respecting the wishes of the people licensing you the software even if they've not been able to craft a perfect, no-loopholes legal document to describe them.

Re:No ethical problem at all

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Even if you do acknowledge there is such a thing as a "spirit" to the contract, you still have to recognize that there are as many different interpretations of that "spirit" as their are users of it.

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.

Re:No ethical problem at all

[Anonymous Coward]

I absolutely would. In fact, there are loopholes. Case in point:

A man with a lethal weapon (gun) comes into my house. He threatens to kill me. I kill him first. At trial, I plead self-defense. I killed someone, but I had no problem doing it. I defended my life, the lives of my family, and my property. I don't even think I'd feel bad.

Re:No ethical problem at all

[rohan972]

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney
"Yes, the GPL allows everyone to do this. The right to sell copies is part of the definition of free software."

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html#SEC2
Preamble ...When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html#SEC3
"1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program.

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."

It's not a loophole, it is deliberately, specifically granted by the terms of the licence that you have the right to sell copies. Not only that, but:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html#SEC3
"6. ... You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.

As such, it is the original author who is attempting to violate the GPL by attempting to impose further restrictions. If they didn't like ALL the terms of the licence, they shouldn't have used the GPLv2 to release their work.

Re:No ethical problem at all

[Chuck Chunder]

There's something to be said for respecting the wishes of the people licensing you the software even if they've not been able to craft a perfect, no-loopholes legal document to describe them.

If those wishes are made clearly in advance then I agree. If they pipe up after you've done invested time and money in good faith then tough luck I say. That's the same as trying to take back the freedom they've given you through the licence.

Re:No ethical problem at all

[Alsee]

While I basically agree the GPL3 wasn't really necessary, it's for the exact opposite reason as you.

TiVo did not violate the "spirit" of the GPL2, they literally violated the letter of the GPL2. TiVo distributed an executable, and according to the GPL2 they are required to supply the all of the they used to compile *that* executable. You cannot distribute an executable for complex photo-manipulation software and offer different source code sufficient to compile some tic-tac-toe executable. You cannot distribute a Cray-supercomputer executable and offer different source code sufficient to compile a same-purpose-but-different-executable for a Commodore64. The executable they created and distributed included a crypto-signature, and that signature was fully intended to be a functional element of that final executable. From their own point of view, their executable would have been incomplete and non-functional if they had left off that signature. The executable they created, the executable they intended to create, was intened to run on TiVo hardware by their own intent the crypto signature was a required functional component of that executable. That signature was in fact part of the executable, and creating that signature was in fact a part of their compilation process for the executable they distributed. Under the existing GPL2 they are required to provide all source materials they themselves needed and used to compile the executable they distributed. The key they used to create that signature is in fact part of the source code for that executable.

It is a violation of the GPL to offer incomplete source code.

TiVo violated the existing GPL2 when they deliberately offered a source code package that the knew and deliberately intended to be incomplete and insufficient to compile the complete working executable that they distributed.

The same issue applies to this case with the iTunes store. You cannot legally distribute GPL software on the iTunes store unless you include any keys or other materials that you used in compiling that executable for the iTunes store. As I understand it, iTunes contractually prohibits you allowing anyone else access to your unique developer compilation key. Distributing GPL software on iTunes would either be a violation of the GPL if you fail to include the developer compilation key you used, or a violation of your iTunes contract. To quote the GPL "If you cannot convey a covered work so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not convey it at all".

I really wish the of the Linux contributors (and copyright holder!) would take up this issue and sue TiVo or anyone else using this tactic of offering useless incomplete TiVoized source.

-

Re:No ethical problem at all

[rohan972]

Yep, you're right, but that doesn't change the fact that if you are going against the wishes/intent of the author who mistakenly chose a license that doesn't do what they wanted you're not being terribly nice. Might even consider it unethical.

I think there is a reasonable expectation that the actual terms of the licence reflect the wishes/intent of the author. I don't expect to have to personally contact every author of anything I find on the internet "Hey you know those license terms, do you really mean it? Can I really, really use it under the stated conditions? Is there anything else you'd like? Are you sure?"

The GPL is not that hard to understand. It very clearly states that selling copies is allowed. If you don't want that and apply the GPL to your work anyway, you're not the sort of person who should be taken seriously by anyone. People like that don't belong in the adult world, they belong in a playground where they can scream "IT'S NOT FAIR!" an fit in with the other children. The poster of this story is under no obligation, moral, ethical or otherwise to stop selling copies. What are they supposed to do, abandon months of work they undertook legally and in good faith? Let someone who can't be bothered reading the license to their own work torpedo their business? Sounds to me like they've been more than fair.

Re:No ethical problem at all

[Alsee]

the GPL only covers the release of the source code for the program itself

Right, and US courts have repeatedly stated that things like this are a functional part of the initialization sequence of the program. The courts consistently treat things like this as a functional and integral part of the program itself.

I replied in more detail to someone else over here.

-

Simple

[Blakey Rat]

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.

Re:Simple

[sweetooth]

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.

Re:Simple

[Trolan]

http://opensource.apple.com/ ?

All the FOSS code and their diffs for each public build are there.

Also a fair amount of Darwin code finds its way back into the mainline BSDs.

Re:Simple

[Wrath0fb0b]

That signing happens after linkage, which means that it's not part of the binary. The binary produced (without the code) will run just fine.

The developer signature is all crypto related to the app-store distribution method -- that is, an iPhone (in default configuration) will not run an unsigned app. That is hardly the developers fault.

Charge but continue to contribute

[Foofoobar]

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.

Re:Charge but continue to contribute

[micheas]

Lots of people complain about Redhat charging every day.

As for CentOS, it is probably core to Redhat's business, as no body is going to develop an app on Fedora, and deploy on RHEL as you would have to retest everything, may as well use Ubuntu as RHEL if you are moving off Fedora, Ubuntu might even be easier to move to.

CentOS is what people that think they might have to deploy on RHEL for production use for skunkworks projects.

Bullshit

[49152]

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!

Here is how GPL does allow

[SerpentMage]

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.

Re:Here is how GPL does allow

[monoqlith]

'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.

Re:Here is how GPL does allow

[asc99c]

I completely agree with most of your points here except the bit about 'I am more thinking that the people who are angry are jealous that they did not think of it first'. A lot of people who work on GPL software are strongly against vendor lock in, and the iPhone platform is kind of providing an end run against GPL provisions and I think it does allow effects that the authors of GPL were probably trying to avoid. The original poster's conciliatory tone leads me to believe he would like to fit in with the spirit of the original developers, and not just simply follow the letter of the licence.

The problem is that the iPhone isn't an open platform. It isn't free to get apps into the store, which makes it tricky to release free as in beer apps. People strongly concerned with free as in both speech and beer stuff are probably not interested in a profit share system, but maybe would be interested in a bit of developer time. My advice to the original poster might be to contribute some effort back to the community if that's possible. You and the original developer of this game obviously share some interests, so there's a possibility that you'll share interest in some other project that could really use some developer time.

Kudos to you and thanks for bringing the game back

[neo]

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.

No Worries!

[lancejjj]

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.

Straight from the horse's mouth

[vivaoporto]

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.)

Why was this posted on Slashdot anyway. They may call programmers rude, but this is clearly a case to RTFM before asking.

The money is not the issue

[MeanMF]

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?

Re:The money is not the issue

[Anonymous Coward]

The GPL applies to the source. Not the binary.

The only connection to the binary it has is that you must make the source available for free to anyone who buys/downloads the binary.

Naturally, they may turn around and reproduce the binary themselves and not have any of the app store restrictions on it.

Reminds of this story

[Norsefire]

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.

Re:Reminds of this story

[Anonymous Coward]

The "UK Government" didn't confiscate anything. It's not clear that any confiscation actually happened. It's not some dimwitted action of central government. If you read the letter in the linked Times article:

'They had encountered businesses which were selling copies of Firefox, and wanted to confirm that this was in violation of our licence agreements before taking action against them.'.

BEFORE. The only mention of confiscation is: "we would like her to return any confiscated CDs".

It was one trading standards officer. There are thousands of them all around the country. It was an honest misapplication of a policy which stops pirated software/DVDs/music being sold at town markets and small stores around the country, and it was confusion that was corrected. No lid was flipped, she just got a bit over-official. The officer in question was just doing her job and experiencing some confusion when encountering a new (to her) business model. The problem was resolved.

this seems like the "TiVo" situation to me

[YesIAmAScript]

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.

Re:this seems like the "TiVo" situation to me

[Shisha]

I can see where your arguments are coming from and I think your opinion makes sense.

However anyone can download the code from their website and compile it on the iphone simulator (which, together with XCode is a free download from Apple). You could argue that you still need a non-free os to run it which won't make RMS happy, but then again on a PC you more often than not have a non free BIOS that's needed to run the OS. And pretty much any computer has a non-free hardware.

Because of this, and other reasons, in my opinion there's nothing wrong with selling a GPL program on the Itunes store as long as anyone who bought it can get the source code.

Re:this seems like the "TiVo" situation to me

[bnenning]

The TiVo situation is different is because TiVo prevents you from running custom code period. Apple charging $100 to licence the platform is no different to Microsoft charging money for Windows and having GPL apps run on it.

It's a tricky situation. What if TiVo distributes GPL3 code on their locked down boxes, provides the source, and offers to sell you an unlocked unit for $1 million?

Re:this seems like the "TiVo" situation to me

[YesIAmAScript]

Free "for non-commercial use" is not libre. Also, you cannot recompile run it on devices without paying $99 to Apple. This isn't because the tools cost money, it's because Apple must sign the code to run it and thus Apple controls who runs it (and charges for it). This is exactly the TiVo case.

And I'm not spreading FUD. For starters, I'm not spreading anything. I'm just commenting.

I'm not alone in my beliefs, either.

http://www.linux.com/archive/feature/131752

Don't even see the point of arguing

[kylemonger]

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.

Clever...they figured out step 2!

[grasshoppa]

Step 1: Port game
Step 2: General controversy over game
Step 3: Profit!

Re:Clever...they figured out step 2!

[rdhatch]

Step 1: Port game
Step 2: General controversy over game
Step 3: Profit!

IMHO this post was scored incorrectly.... this is not just "Funny" but is also just plain smart/insightful. this may have been a clever move, but it was more than that...this was just plain smart. creating controversy (especially among this community) is advertising. i imagine that sales for this game has gone up (and will continue to go up) since this post. i for one will probably pick this game up when i finish this post. like i said, many times controversy => advertisement...and a lot of that advertisement ends up being positive...i mean geeze....look at the tone of this thread... -ryan

Re:Kudos to you and thanks for bringing the game b

[meza]

The source-code seem to be downloadable http://7b5labs.com/xpilotiphone

Charge 'em!

[dkf]

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).

Ethics were not violated.

[MrMacman2u]

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!

"Spirit of GPL"

[Thalaric]

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.

Your Ethics look fine to me

[jeremy_white]

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

Richard Stallman agrees with you

[rgmoore]

Richard Stallman, the original author of the GPL, agrees with you. To quote what the Free Software Foundation says about it:

Actually we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can...

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...

Distributing free software is an opportunity to raise funds for development. Don't waste it!

(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.

Re:The Charging is fine...

[TheRaven64]

You'd have a hard time arguing that a URL was a medium. The FSF's lawyers agree, which is why this clause was rewritten to allow download links in v3.

Re:Kudos to you and thanks for bringing the game b

[meza]

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.

IIRC, Ok with the GPL, NOT apple...

[nweaver]

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.

Re:IIRC, Ok with the GPL, NOT apple...

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple got rid of the NDA when iPhone devs complained that it restricted their ability to discuss development on forums.

http://www.macgeekery.com/column/eloquent_apathy/apple_removes_iphone_sdk_nda

Re:IIRC, Ok with the GPL, NOT apple...

[slycrel]

Apple changed this with I believe 2.2 so that their beta releases were under NDA, but standard releases are not. Previous to this change you are correct, but the situation has changed for the better now. So as long as they aren't currently releasing 3.1 beta specific code I believe they are fine. That's my understanding as an iPhone developer myself.

Spirit of the GPL

[Ed Avis]

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:

Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things.

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.

Any problem is in using app store

[Lemming Mark]

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!

GPLv2 vs GPLv3

[hysterion]

Since the original XPilot is GPLv2 the case is quite clear-cut, as everyone already answered. Perhaps the original developer is confused by comments pertining to v3, such as the following?

Published at http://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/why-free-software-and-apples-iphone-dont-mix, "Why free software and Apple's iPhone don't mix" is one of a series of articles detailing the threats posed by Apple's iPhone to the free software community. It focuses specifically on Apple's "tivoization" model of requiring every application installed on the iPhone to have an approved cryptographic signature, a restriction which is incompatible with version 3 of the GNU General Public License and with user freedoms to share and modify free software in general. (emphasis added)

The URL referred to makes this case based on a quote of the GPLv3 "Installation Information" clause,

"Installation Information" for a User Product means any methods, procedures, authorization keys, or other information required to install and execute modified versions of a covered work in that User Product from a modified version of its Corresponding Source. The information must suffice to ensure that the continued functioning of the modified object code is in no case prevented or interfered with solely because modification has been made.

If you convey an object code work under this section in, or with, or specifically for use in, a User Product, and the conveying occurs as part of a transaction in which the right of possession and use of the User Product is transferred to the recipient in perpetuity or for a fixed term (regardless of how the transaction is characterized), the Corresponding Source conveyed under this section must be accompanied by the Installation Information. But this requirement does not apply if neither you nor any third party retains the ability to install modified object code on the User Product (for example, the work has been installed in ROM).

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..."?

No

[mike260]

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.

Re:No

[raynet]

Humm, I recall that the "duplication of functionality" clause referred only to Apple's applications, not to any 3rd party applications sold on the store.

Re:No

[kelnos]

As another poster said, I'm pretty sure the duplication of functionality rationale for rejecting apps only applied to duplication of Apple-provided functionality. Really, one browse through the app store shows ridiculous amounts of duplication.

Re:No

[SwabTheDeck]

Apple does not allow "duplication of functionality" and they would surely reject such resubmissions.

Not quite accurate. Apple does not allow duplicating the functionality of Apple's apps. They don't care if you're the 1000th person to create a twitter client or a "flashlight". They still may reject an app for a million other reasons, but they only care about people impinging on their own territory.

Re:Your First Mistake

[frovingslosh]

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.

Re:Spirit of the GPL

[Snocone]

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;

Where does it specify in the GPL that you must redistribute on the exact device and channel you receive it on? I do not see that. Redistributing simulator binaries is the freedom to distribute the program, just on a different platform, and distributing via Cydia is redistributing it on the same platform but a different channel. The GPL is satisfied.

The platform is the problem ...

[Pinky's Brain]

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.

You're fine, since you made the source available

[PinchDuck]

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.

yes, it is against the spirit of gpl

[PineGreen]

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.

Re:yes, it is against the spirit of gpl

[JoelKatz]

No, PineGreen, it is not. That is definitely part of the spirit of the GPL.

The point is, if I want to lock my software to kingdom come and sell it, I am free to do so. And if you want to unlock it and give it away, you too are free to do so.

That *IS* the spirit of the GPL. That we can each do whatever we want with the software, and if you don't like what I did, you can do something else.
Don't like the iPhone's rules, don't use it. Don't like my code, change it.

The GPL specifically prohibits use or distribution restrictions. It is perverse for you to flip this spirit on its head.

It's like if I say "borrow my car and go wherever you want in the whole world" it's against the spirit to go to New Jersey. Because I said you could go anywhere and New Jersey is just one place.

The source code is free. Take it anywhere. Even New Jersey.

That is was specifically the source code that was free was a critical choice -- key to the GPL spirit.

From the original disgruntled developer

[BjornStabell]

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.

• FREE AS IN BEER
  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.

• FREE AS IN FREEDOM
  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:

• Fair compensation - Even if you could sell it, there's just no way to fairly price the development contributions of everyone in open source projects, and SM probably wouldn't be the right arbiters.
• No sustainable competitive advantage - Though they drag their feet advertising and releasing it, the source is free, so there's unfortunately no way to sustain this as a business. It doesn't make sense to try to sell it.
• Alienation of contributors - Charging for the game will severely restrict the number of developers that are willing to contribute. It just doesn't feel as altruistic anymore.
• Limited user base - Making it free would probably increase the user base 10-100 fold, so if they cared about seeing the user base grow, that's what they would do.

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.)

Re:From the original disgruntled developer

[ziggy_az]

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.

Re:From the original disgruntled developer

[SeanCier]

Please moderate up the parent. I very much appreciate Bjorn chiming in on this with his side of the story -- and again, I can't emphasize enough just how much we respect his contribution; without Bjorn, there would have been no XPilot to begin with.

I'd like to clarify a few points.

The source is current. The git repository available on the page is exactly the source that we've built each release from, and is in fact the only way the two of use share code with each other; when it's not updated, it's because we haven't changed anything that day.

The message you're referring to where we "went ballistic" was very much an over simplification. If anybody is interested in the actual email he's talking about, I'll be happy to provide it, but this is a mischaracterization. In particular, Bjorn responded to our extending an olive branch by providing a deadline for us to make the game free, and yes, that rubbed me the wrong way; and Bjorn, I apologize for letting my frustration become so evident.

Your points about whether this was fair or not, and the issues of selling OSS, are perfectly valid -- and in fact trying to determine which of our views reflected the majority perspective of expectations when contributing to GPLed software was, in fact, the reason we wished to have this open discussion.

Re:From the original disgruntled developer

[bbn]

The history of selling GPL software is long and should not surprise you. Your software has already been sold by numerous Linux distributions (RedHat et al).

What makes these guys any different?

If you want to cash out the $99 you should definitely put it up for sale for free.

If not, you should not complain about someone making money distributing GPL software - they stand on the shoulders of giants doing exactly that.

Re:From the original disgruntled developer

[amorsen]

I think you're coming from this from the wrong angle.

The issues with selling open source software aren't unique to XPilot, and so far it seems to work quite well for e.g. Red Hat. Charging for Free Software is an explicit right that Stallman deliberately ensured that the GPL would grant.

The only thing different about the iPhone is the "No sustainable competitive advantage". If Apple rejects identical apps from the App Store, the people doing the first port have a sustainable competitive advantage even over the original developers. That is something the GPLv2 didn't foresee. The GPLv3 has some provisions which make it harder to make a monopoly App Store with GPLv3 code, but that doesn't help you when XPilot is GPLv2.

(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.)

I think that's actually the only argument that actually matters. The App Store is a large problem for Free Software on the iPhone. Perhaps you should consider switching to GPLv3? That won't help retroactively, of course...

Re:From the original disgruntled developer

[DavidRawling]

Hi Bjorn

I'm interested in getting clarification on some of the points you've raised.

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.

How is this significantly different from Red Hat selling RHEL? RH are also trying to profit from the man-years of development work that went into the Linux kernel, associated binaries, tools, environments and configuration efforts.

• FREE AS IN BEER 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 see only the XPilot game on the site linked in the summary, but I did find other sites publicising XPilot for the iPhone so I'm not sure whether they have 1 project or many. Regardless, are you suggesting that all GPL projects on the iPhone must have their registration costs and time paid for by an original non-GPL application? They have to purchase bandwidth and computing resources, maintain the web site - why can they not continue to recover those costs too?

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.

I agree the offer of the source needs to be prominent - I see this has been fixed. But charging for the software is not, and has never been, against the spirit of the GPL. Witness RMS himself charging for EMACS on tape, before online distribution was viable. The GPL itself says you can charge for the act of transferring a copy (what else would you characterise the App Store installation as doing?) What if the charge represents only their own contributions?

As for the source being older than the binary - I'd raise two points.

1. By definition the source is older than the object code it generates, merely by virtue of needing to write before compilation.
2. Perhaps it was recompiled with an updated compiler? Against an updated library for the new 3.01 iPhone core? And/or the updated version took weeks to be reviewed and published?

There are a number of other issues with selling open source software:

• Fair compensation - Even if you could sell it, there's just no way to fairly price the development contributions of everyone in open source projects, and SM probably wouldn't be the right arbiters.
• No sustainable competitive advantage - Though they drag their feet advertising and releasing it, the source is free, so there's unfortunately no way to sustain this as a business. It doesn't make sense to try to sell it.
• Alienation of contributors - Charging for the game will severely restrict the number of developers that are willing to contribute. It just doesn't feel as altruistic anymore.
• Limited user base - Making it free would probably increase the user base 10-100 fold, so if they cared about seeing the user base grow, that's what they would do.

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 some

Re:From the original disgruntled developer

[BitZtream]

Stop whining and put your own free version up.

You picked the wrong license, you don't want freedom, you want it used the way you specify. Thats not freedom, that agenda pushing.

Here are the counter points to your issues:

Fair Compensation - Uhm, you didn't want compensation, thats why you chose GPL. You are getting fair compensation, 0, wrong license if you expected to be compensated monetarily for your work. Or, are you saying you picked the wrong license, it obviously wasn't restrictive enough for you, so much for your 'free as in freedom' bullshit.

No sustainable competitive advantage - So ... it won't work ... why exactly are you bitching instead of making and releasing the no charge version?

Alienation of contributors - You mean like how you are alienating him and complaining about the work and effort he put into it?

Limited user base - So you're complaining that someone put for the effort to port it to iPhone, but you haven't bothered to do so. So he added users that you weren't willing to add, and you're complaining about him limiting the potential user base. If you're so worried why don't you port it to every OS and hardware platform ever made.

In reality your just a whiney bitch, period. You and others released your software under the GPL which is very clear in allowing for this. You picked the wrong license and now you want to use something else, too bad. Stop whining about it and appreciate the fact that its still around and someone bothered to port it to one of the most popular/hyped devices on the planet. Take advantage of this to get your name out there and get a job rather than being such a whiney baby about it. This can benefit you if you let it.

If you think its against GPL to distribute through the app store you need to actually read the GPL. Sorry you don't like the license you used, but one of the things in that license is that you cant' go back on it, that is pretty clear and I'm pretty sure you knew that going into it.

You don't actually care about true freedom or you would have used public domain or the like. Personally, I'm a BSD/Apache/MIT license guy, and my software has been used in commercial products helping to make a fair amount of money for a couple companies. Am I disappointed that I don't get a cut? Sure, but I knew when I released the source that it was a possibility, there are also a lot of people using it in their projects who release their code for free as well. The companies using my code know who I am, and its netted me a job. What you don't see me doing is whining about it. You do see me bitching about douche bags who care about pushing their own personal agenda rather than freedom.

Re:From the original disgruntled developer

[DavidRawling]

Now I'm even more confused.

I went and looked at the source, and it directly contradicts your statement (GP) that it was only committed in June. The last commits I see on the client were 11 days ago. The newest version on iTunes was submitted 11 or so days ago - 2009.07.22 on that page - and published 2-3 days ago. That seems eminently reasonable.

Not that I could find the source easily ... Sean - you might want to link to the source on the Links page of the site, or from the XPilot page.

Re:From the original disgruntled developer

[BjornStabell]

Hm, seems that if you git clone http://7b5labs.com/xpilot.git you'll get something that is more than 30 days old.

But if you browse Trac you'll see the latest sources. Not sure what's going on.

Re:From the original disgruntled developer

[BjornStabell]

The difference between Red Hat, SUsE, is that their variable distribution costs are not 0. Ubuntu goes a bit overboard by even doing this for free.

I think you misunderstood: I don't think it's unlikely anyone will buy the game. I think the fact that it can be made free will eventually make the game free and so they'll lose their distribution position.

According to the GPL it is fine to way for services provided after the sale, like warranty and hosting, and I can see SM charging for that. I wouldn't have any problem with that at all. I just have a problem with them charging for the actual binary when there variable distribution cost is 0. That said, I can't stop them from charging, I just think it's unethical and rubs the potential developer base the wrong way, and in the end it's not sustainable.

Re:From the original disgruntled developer

[Spit]

Sorry, charging money for distribution is wholly within the spirit of the GPL. You have a point if the distributed binary is not covered by the distributed source, and the fact that it's not easy to build your own binary is questioinable but that was the loophole that GPLv3 fixed.

This group owes you no money, they only owe you source.

Re:From the original disgruntled developer

[CodeBuster]

If you release something under GPL at some point in time and someone takes that program, modifies it and then sells it, which everyone agrees is allowed subject to the terms of the license (in practice we all know that it is difficult to sell GPLd software for anything other than $0 since anyone else could simply post their purchased copy online gratis) then can you as the developer revoke your original grant of license under GPL retroactively? I have to think that the answer to that is no because once you pass the program on and other people continue to modify the program, perhaps even selling it subject to the terms of the license, do the rights of any one previous contributor, even if he is the creater, trump all subsequent contributors? What if Linus suddenly decided that the original Linux kernel GPL license was revoked, does that invalidate all subsequent versions and their contributor's right to use and distribute under the original grant of license?

What makes this case even more complicated is the App store and the closed nature of the "official" system for loading software onto an iPhone. Perhaps you might want to consider using GPLv3 in the future which forbids use of the software in an environment where DRM limits the ability to independently modify and re-install or reload the software? GPLv3 was designed to better address some of the problems that have occurred in recent years with tethered hardware and DRM locks effectively rendering GPL rights granted under prior versions of the license moot.

However, I think that I am going to have to agree with Sean and Michael on this one; You licensed under the terms of GPL and GPL allows selling or does not forbid it as long as the source code is freely available with the program and both can be redistributed by any further recipients, whether they want to charge or not. I would say that in the future you might want to use a different license or write your own if you disagree with selling; which is not prohibited under GPL.

Re:From the original disgruntled developer

[SeanCier]

Bjorn was in fact quite right about the source being out-of-date, and his pointing it out helped us track down a pretty boneheaded technical glitch on our side (we were missing a post-update hook). We hadn't noticed it as it only shows up for http access, and we use ssh to access the same repository. It's fixed now, and should remain up-to-date in the future. Apologies to Bjorn and anybody else who accessed the source -- please do a pull to get the latest.

Re:From the original disgruntled developer

[Eric S. Smith]

If you try to sell GPL software you really open up a can of worms in terms of ethical problems.

I still don't see why you think this. You and your hundreds of friends created a work under the GPL. Sale is clearly contemplated by the GPL. Are future developers required to assume that you didn't know what you were doing and to check with each of you to find out how you feel about something that's laid out in black and white in the license?

Re:From the original disgruntled developer

[vrmlguy]

"Even if you could sell it" - I was being hypthetical. If you try to sell GPL software you really open up a can of worms in terms of ethical problems. I have no intention of making money off XPilot.

Go look at my posting history. I've sold lots of GPL'ed software in my career. You may not want to make money from "your" software, but I like to occasionally buy nice things for my wife and kids. And I used quotes back there because it appears that at least one of the other developers has fewer problems with this than you do: http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1322797&cid=28910091

The reason XPilot even exists is that there was a thriving community of (probably) hundreds of developers contributing. I doubt that would happen if anyone was trying to sell it. I'm not complaining about the work he did, I'm complaining about him trying to sell software that he has built a mere fraction of.

Why would you think that? There are thriving communities of (probably) thousands of developers contributing maps and mods to closed source games. There are thriving communities of (probably) tens of thousands of writers creating fan-fiction for works owned by people and/or corporations who don't share well with others. People like to give back to things they like, and licensing (or the lack thereof) rarely stops them from doing so.

True, though I'm sure you agree they are trading off a bigger user base for bigger profits.

If you feel so strongly about it, take the provided code and compile your own app. The source is right there, so it won't take much work. Publish it in the App Store with a Tolkienesque message: "Those who approve of courtesy (at least) to living authors will purchase it and no other."

I have no intentions of making money off XPilot. (Read the "even if you could sell it" paragraph above.) I've had lots of benefits from being involved in the project, though.

So after you get back the $99 you spent getting into the App Store, send the rest to the FSF.

Fuck the original developers

[thetoadwarrior]

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.

Morons

[Master of Transhuman]

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).

Re:The Charging is fine...

[harlows_monkeys]

That's a slightly muddy area, because the app store is not a web site. Question 1 of the FSF's GPL quiz is about distributing the source online when distributing binary on CD and the correct answer that putting a download the source URL on the CD is a violation. The App Store is not a web site, it is accessible either through the iPhone or through iTunes, not via a web browser. That means that placing a download link would not be distributing the source along side the binary, especially since the iPhone's web browser does not allow downloading files, meaning that if you download the app from the store on its target platform you can not get the source the same way.

It's only muddy if you think "internet site" or "internet server" are synonyms for "web site", and if you think "link or cross-reference" means "clickable link on a web page". They are satisfying all of the conditions spelled out in the FAQ answer. Binary on an internet site. Check. Source on a different internet site. Check. Cross reference on first site to second site. Check.

Furthermore, you have ignored the fact that downloading via the iPhone is not the only way to get apps. You can download them through iTunes, and if you click the link in iTunes for the developer's site, it opens it in a browser.

This is the key issue

[RDW]

'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).

Re:rock and a hard place

[harlows_monkeys]

The right thing to do, would have been to contact the original designers and ask for their permission in the first place.

They already gave him permission when they released the code under GPL. Personally, I'd be annoyed if people were contacting me to ask if they can do things that I already covered by releasing my code under a free software license. Maybe I'd be OK with it if it was some very tricky edge case, but "charge money for GPL code" is not a tricky edge case.

Its fine

[DiSKiLLeR]

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.

Re:You Have TWO Problems...

[bnenning]

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.

You can charge whatever you want. RMS was charging people $150 for copies of Emacs, which is far more than the cost of the "physical act" of copying.

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?"

Notice the penultimate part, "scripts to control". That would be the Xcode project files, which he's including.

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).

No. If that were the case, there could be no GPL software for OS X or Windows. It's your responsibility to get your build environment set up, and the GPL makes no promises that that will be free or easy.

I do understand why some people are uneasy about this; in the case of the iPhone there's a completely artificial barrier to development, as opposed to the inherent "barriers" of needing access to a computer and compiler and so forth, but as far as I can tell that makes no difference for the GPL.

Correct

[Sycraft-fu]

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.

NO, Apple violates the GPL

[radimvice]

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.

Re:Barrier for even using the compiled binary

[snowgirl]

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.

No, it's a barrier that you even need electricity at all! I can't play this on my tabletop with candles, (which even then requires the barrier for owning a table, and candles.. and fire.)

Look, there's a barrier to everything. I can't use SUSE ppc on anything but a PowerPC computer, I can't use Linux ia64 on anything but an Itanium, which are STILL stupid expensive.

That there is a barrier of entry to use the binary is stupid, and unimportant, because if the barrier of entry to use the binary is too high, then DON'T BUY OR DOWNLOAD THE BINARY!!!

If you're bitching that you need an iPhone even to use the source code, then download the source code, modify it for your platform of choice, and then make it interoperable with the iPhones.