Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: Where Do You Draw the Line On GPL V2 Derived Works and Fees?
First time accepted submitter Shifuimam writes "I downloaded a DOSBox port for Android recently to get back into all the games of my childhood. Turns out that the only free distribution available hasn't been updated in nearly two years, so I looked for alternatives. There are two on Google Play — DOSBox Turbo and "DOSBot". Both charge a fee — DOSBox Turbo is $3.99; DOSBot is $0.99. The developer of DOSBot says on his Google Play entry that he will not release the source code of his application because it's not GPL, even though it's derived from source released under GPL v2 — this is definitely a violation of the license. The developer of DOSBox Turbo is refusing to release the source for his application unless you pay the $3.99 to "buy" a license of it. The same developer explicitly states that the "small" fee (although one might argue that $3.99 is pretty expensive for an OSS Android app) is to cover the cost of development. Unless I'm misreading the text of GPL v2, a fee can only be charged to cover the cost of the distribution of a program or derived work, not the cost of development. And, of course, it doesn't cost the developer anything for someone to log in to Google Play and download their app. In fact, from what I can tell, there's a one-time $25 fee to register for Google Checkout, after which releasing apps is free. Where do you draw the line on this? What do you do in this kind of situation?"
If you have to pay $3.99 to get the DOSBox Turbo binary, and then you get the source free along with it, then that's definitely not a violation of the license. (If you don't give someone the binary, then you don't have to give them the source either.) It's also definitely open to someone following the AC's suggestion.
What about the rights of the people who worked on it in the past, with the understanding that their "compensation" would be in the form of others donating their time to continue improvements?
From what I understand, the "heavy lifting" of getting a MSDOS emulator working has been done under these terms. DOSBot and DOSBox Turbo can replace the GPLed code that OTHER PEOPLE HAVE WRITTEN AND DESERVE TO BE COMPENSATED FOR with code they've written themselves if they don't agree to those terms.
I thought you could charge any amount you want for distribution...
Yes and no.
1. If you sell a binary that contains GPLv2 code, you must also make available the source code , and for distributing that source code, you can only charge a reasonable fee to cover costs.
But...
2. The binary you may charge whatever you want - 1 cent or $1000 or whatever.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
"If you don't give someone the binary"
I believe the intent of the parent poster was using give as in "provide" not "give" as in make a gift of.
You are absolutely allowed to sell the binary for any price the market will bear, and then for compliance with the GPL you must either have a written offer as you describe or include the source code with the binary distribution. It isn't clear from the facts whether the distributor of DosBox Turbo is in compliance or not, it would depend entirely on whether there is a written offer for how to get source at a minimal expense included in the help text of the app or in the app description. Without that, then it seems to me to be in violation, but it doesn't hinge on the cost of the binary.
One critical fact is that anybody who does get the source has full GPL rights to it, and can redistribute it should they choose. This ability to compete is what limits the pricing, not the GPL.
It seems to me that this is the fundamental problem with GPL, and some other, open source licenses
No, it's a fundamental problem with the current legal system. Nothing more, nothing less. The GPL, as any contract, is only enforceable by the legal system in place, which has this bias.
Write boring code, not shiny code!
This is correct, and for the DOSBox Turbo, the OP got it completely wrong
The person possessing the GPLed software can charge anything he likes for the binaries. It's only to the source code that there is a limit to whatever the distribution cost is. But DOSBox Turbo has every right to charge what it likes. The fact that the OP is bitching about $3.99 - less then the cost of a happy meal - shows exactly what's wrong w/ the 'free software' movement, and why companies are right to avoid them like the plague.
Also, the source code only has to accompany the binaries - it doesn't have to be given for free to just about anybody or everybody. Personally, I think that clause 3b is ridiculous - nobody should have to support a third party, who only got that software due to a license, and not anything else. But the way around it is for anybody selling GPL software to go w/ option 3a - once they are paid, provide both the binaries and source in the same download, and leave the responsibility of re-distributing the source to the customer. That way, any Billy Joe Blow turns up asking for the source code, he can be told to GFY, unless he happened to buy it from him.
That way, that'll be all there is to it.
That's only the case if you include the source code along with the binaries. Otherwise you must accompany the binaries with a written offer for the source code, of which anybody (including those who aren't your customers) is then free to take advantage.
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."