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?"
Then post it on the internet yourself.
Developers are wrong to assume they can lock up the GPL code.
You are wrong thinking that $3.99 is expensive for an android app - developing, curating, supporting and distributing code (open source or not) costs time and effort. Be willing to pay for that.
Don't pay GLP violators though.
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 -- that you aren't limited to covering costs of the media, but you are actually allowed to make money for the "support" you provide by compiling the open source into a binary. However small that support may be, the GPL v2 does allow a company to carve out a small branded zone here. Providing binaries in the Google Play market is a valid thing to charge a little money for, and make a little money on
I also thought that whenever a binary is made available, the source code had to be made available. I thought it was this source code distribution which must be performed for the media cost (GPL v2 coming from a day when tapes were occassionally still considered a possible choice of distribution medium).
What this would mean, to me, is that DOSBox Turbo should be making the source code freely available. Then the market will decide if $3.99 is too much to bear for the product they provide -- some service in compiling the binary, and a brand.
Just call rms to release all its fury. Jokes aside, I suppose you can request help from the Free Software Foundation: http://www.fsf.org/ Clear GPL violations, even this relatively small ones, should not be tolerated.
A restriction is only as binding as its enforcement mechanism. If the developers behind DOSBox aren't going to hold other developers accountable who are trading on their name, and nobody else is willing to take them to court over it (and obviously nobody will over $3.99), then the restrictions are meaningless.
Another incident which comes to mind is that of DD-WRT - there are several articles on this, but I'll just link to the first on Google's listings - where they derived their product from open source code (OpenWRT), then closed source key parts and refuse to release the code in workable form.
It seems to me that this is the fundamental problem with GPL, and some other, open source licenses; it all depends on the honor system. Sure, they are technically legally binding, but if nobody holds anybody's feet to the fire, that means nothing.
As it pertains to you if you really care that much about it, I suppose you have three choices: (1) Swallow it, and pay the price they are demanding; (2) Go without, and refuse to give developers like this your money; (3) Buy a license of the source code, and then release it publicly out of principle. Since this stemmed from wanting to play games from your childhood, the pragmatist in me says to choose option two and move on.
The GPL doesn't prohibit you from charging for your software. It does require you to give the source to anyone who gets the binary and charge only the cost of distribution, but failing to do so is a license violation against the copyright holder, not against the user who wants the source.
So you need to convince a copyright holder of the original GPL2 version to go after the individual who isn't releasing source.
And you need to pay the $3.99 before you can get the source from the other guy.
They can charge money for the apps, the GPL doesn't prevent that. But they must distribute the source code, the GPL requires that. IMHO some people will build their own app from source but many more will just pay for the convenience of instant installation and updates. Unfortunately sooner or later somebody will publish the same app for free and if s/he keeps it updated they'll be driven out of business.
No one compelled him to take a GPL code and extend it. When he took upon himself to use GPL code, he has agreed to release the source code, when he distributes the binaries of his derived work. So I do believe in forcing others to give away their source code (when I have purchased their binary). And I do believe in forcing others to pay for my work (especially when I have paid for the binaries).
Developers only need to release the source code if the person receiving the binary requests it. Therefore, the developers do not have to provide you with their code unless you first purchase their app. Plus, they can also charge you a small fee for sending you the source code if it's provided on physical media.
It sounds to me like the original poster hasn't read the GPL or greatly misunderstood what it says.
If you are a DOSBox developer and have code in the source tree, try sending a DMCA takedown notice to Google.
If you aren't, it sounds like you've done the first step, which is report it to the community at large. You might contact DOSBox's developer community and see if they even care.
its dos, it hasnt been made for over a decade, does your app work? if yes then be happy, if no then start looking, its not like it has to keep up with the bleeding edge of MS DOS development here
As you said, DOSBot does violate the GPL; however, DosBox Turbo doesn't.
You're allowed to charge whatever the hell you want for copies of GPLv2 binaries. You could charge $5,000 if you wanted. But, having sold someone a copy of the binary, you're not allowed to *further* charge them more than the cost of distribution for providing the source code (or prevent them from further distributing said source code, for that matter.) So anyone could buy your $5,000 GPLv2 software and fork it into a free-as-in-beer version.
Seriously, this is such a glaring violation that he should lose his home in litigation. Ruin the fucker's life.
All we need is one solid example of fucking with the license and everyone will use it.
the issue is not that he has the right to sell the software, but in the same way he has the duty to provide the source code... the two things are not mutually exclusive..
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.
The GPL doesn't mandate that the software/source code be released for free, it mandates that the source code MUST accompany the binary if (and only if) the binary is distributed.
For example, I work for Random Fortune 500 Co. and take a copy of DOSBox, heavily modify it and deploy it to all the workstations in my organization. At no point am I publicly distributing a binary, thus nobody has the right to demand I release my source code.
Example 2: I decide to take the DOSBox source code and make an Android port. I put this port in the app store and sell it for $5. Unless you purchase the application, again you have no right to request the source code. If 100 people purchase my application, they have the right to request the modified source code. If you buy it, you can request the source code.
Once you get the source code, you can do whatever you want with it, within the bounds of the GPL. You can give it away for free, package it up and resell it (modified or unmodified), or never give it away to anyone!
everyday is another shooter.
Actually, you are wrong in the case of DOSBox Turbo. Section 3 says he must do one of three things: distribute the source ALWAYS with any copy (which he is not doing), distribute the source on demand to ANYBODY requesting it for the price of materials, or provide your modifications along with any offer of code from section 2.
Sorry, that sounds pretty clear. He didn't say "send me $4 by post and I'll mail you a floppy." He's demanding he purchase it through Google Play, which means the first clause of section 3 is in effect.
the point, as I understand it, of GPLv2 is to allow someone who gets a piece of software to have some freedom (not a free ride) with what they just got. There's no issue with making money off it.
rule of thumb: if you get a piece of software, can you change it at the code level? can you pass on those changes to someone else without having to check with who you got it from? if either answer is "No" then there's a problem if you got a supposed GPLv2 piece of software.
AB HOC POSSUM VIDERE DOMUM TUUM
"he 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"
gross violation of the GPL, report it to the EFF and the FSF immediately, they can and just might sue.
"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."
which is allowed under the GPL, specificly. Stallman himself said he has no problem with people charging money for software so long as the source code is included, and the consumer is given the right to look at, modify, recompile and redistribute software.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/. He's also made it very clear, Free software is "Free as in speech, not free as in beer".
So if you have the opinion that no one should ever charge for software, fine, but your views do not represent either the FSF, nor its illustrious founder, nor the bulk of the Free software community, and certainly not the Open Source community(which has found a solid business model to profit off Free software).
You could obviously pay the 3.99 and re-upload the app, or copy from someone else who has it.
distribute the source on demand to ANYBODY requesting it for the price of materials
Not anybody -- any third party. That's a specific legal term and the specific meaning of the third party is not defined. The GPL v3 clarified it as to mean that the first party (distributor) only has to provide source code to a third party if the third party received a GPL-licensed work from the first party. If it came down to it, a judge and jury would probably use the GPL v3 rules for an ambiguous v2 license dispute.
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.
You are misreading the GPL. There's nothing stopping the author selling the product for £1,000,000.
Of course he's obliged to give the source code away - but only to people he distributes the application to. He's not obliged to make the source code available to anyone who wants a copy, and he's not obliged to distribute it to people who haven't got a copy of the binary.
Thing is, he's not allowed to impose any onerous conditions on you. He could sell it for, say, £1,000,000; you could buy it and then sell it yourself for £100. If you can persuade more than ten thousand people to buy it, you'd make a profit overall. If you could persuade 10,001 people to pay £100 for every one person who pays £1,000,000 to the original author, you'd make more money than them!
This means that it's pretty rare for commercial software to be sold under the GPL; usually it's dual-licensed. But it's not unknown, and as more hobbyist developers start looking at selling packaged apps on platforms like Google Play, I think it may even become more common.
They shouldn't have picked software licensed under the GPL. Since they did they are bound by the terms of the license.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Did you even read the GPL text?
I think you are referring to the to the section 3) of the GPL license?
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
There it states that You may copy and distribute the Program ... if you follow the terms a), b) and c). That means if you are not copy and not distribute the Program you are in no obligation to offer anyone the source code (under the terms a), b) or c)).
I think a lot of people misunderstand the GPL. The GPL is a license that is protecting the user and grands the user rights (to study the code, to modify the code and to re-distribute the code). If you are using the application and you are not distributing it to others then the GPL gives you rights that you normally would not have.
Only if you are distributing the GPL'd application you have to grand your users the same rights that you have previously enjoined. That means you have to give them the source code with any modifications you have made.
So, to answer your question: if you are not buying the application you are not a user, the developer is not distributing the application to you and the developer is under no obligation to give you the source code.
http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
Even better than "pay the $3.99 and upload the app". Pay the $3.99, get the source. Then talk to upstream to merge the changes upstream. Then redistribute the app from upstream. You do not want to have to upkeep a separate code tree for android. Merging it to upstream might just give you free updates of the engine.
I don't think so. "Third party" is, as you say, a specific legal term, but it is well-defined in law. The GPL doesn't provide any other definition, so the standard definition would be used in interpreting that language in the GPL.
And no, the GPL v3 doesn't allow distributing only to people who got the software directly from the distributor. Section 6 paragraph B (which applies here) says you have to provide the code to anyone who possesses the binaries. If Harry gets the program from you, and then Harry passes a copy along to me, I have a right to get the source code from you (Harry received the software under 6b, I received it under 6c, I possess the binaries thus can invoke 6b against you).
One thing's remained constant for a long time: the only option that permits you to give source code only to people who received the software directly from you is 3A (GPLv2) or 6A (GPLv3): distributing the source code along with the binaries.
This exactly points out what is wrong with this world.
When you think that 3.99 is too much, please take a look at the number of downloads. See how that fits into your current salary.
If the math is working well for you and you live on fast noodles and in a cardboard box, then complain!
I'm not a software engineer, just someone who is shocked by consumer attitudes over and over again.
-- http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#WhatDoesWrittenOfferValid
Which makes sense, since the first two parties are the two involved in the license, "any third party" is anyone else.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
I think this is an apt discussion. All the basic tools like FTP, SSH etc on mobile are made by weirdo, fly-by-night companies, mostly re-using old code. Where is the Android AOSP FTP, SSH, etc?
Good-bye
If you want the app, pay the fee. If you are squabbling over the cost of a coffee at Starbucks, you have more financial issues than you think and if that is the case, you probably don't need that shiny Android device.
If it ticks you off so much, fork the most recent open source version you can find and try to build a community behind it.
I do understand this is all about GPL Violations, but if what brought you to investigating it was sticker price shock, I am just baffled by your cheapness.
Because AC is right.
First, the question is of the interaction. The apps almost certainly consist of a launcher/helper written in Java/Android and a compiled binary. The normal analysis is that by calling a GPLed program your program does not yet become GPLed. The next detail is that the DOSBox source is probably modified, e.g. to interact with the hardware (e.g. Android is not X11), and to compile on ARM, ... => these modifications do need to be released.
If you install the "Trial Version" (assuming there is one), then you have the Binaries, therefore you should be able to request the source no?
Visit the Arcade Restoration Workshop @ http://www.arcaderestoration.com
Because I am an adult.
I'm sure there's some way to contact the DOSBox developers on the site (maybe use the forums?), so maybe you should notify them of the GPL violation(s) and let them know whether they want to pursue legal action. As for the GPL violation(s) of DOSBox Turbo, there is nothing in the GPLv2 that states binaries MUST be released without a fee, and that's true for derivative works as well. Well, except for 2(b), right?
Technically, one might interpret that to mean you still need to buy the product, but the actual cost of licensing must be 0. In other words, the cost of the Program is NOT the cost of the license, unlike Microsoft Windows 7's "Anytime Upgrade" feature where you can purchase a license key to upgrade your edition of Windows. However, the developer of DOSBox Turbo apparently used the term "license" to refer to the charge of $3.99, and the original work is under the GPLv2 which requires that modifications to the source code must be licensed at no cost. As a result, DOSBox Turbo is violating the GPLv2 if it is a derivative work of DOSBox.
Someone mentioned section 3, which states that source code must be released and distributed under the terms of sections 1 and 2 of the GPLv2 OR provide an offer to release the source code, valid for three years to any party for a fee of no more than it costs to distribute it, such as the cost of a CD-ROM and shipping. The third option available applies only to non-commercial works, so I didn't mention that. In other words, DOSBot violates section 3 by not offering the option of distributing the source code to a party upon request or making it available with the binary/executable form if it is indeed a derivative work of DOSBox.
In any case, the binary/executable form of a Program is allowed to be offered at a charge of unspecified amount without restriction. The source code must be made available or offered upon request for no more than the cost to distribute the source code, though obviously it can be made available at no charge, as per the terms in section 3. Let me repeat that: cost of the Program or a derivative work in binary/executable form can cost as much as it wants, but it must NOT be a licensing fee if it is a derivative work because the GPLv2 states that modified code must be licensed at no charge. Cost of the source code is absolutely 0 in terms of monetary value, but the cost to distribute it must not be at a profit. (Exact cost for distribution only, without licensing fees or charge for the source code itself.)
I could rant about how I favor the BSD/MIT licenses and why I think the GPL is harmful, but that would be off-topic and would serve no purpose to help the OP.
I have been a captive in America my entire life. Everybody and everything uses customary units instead of metric.
You can request the source code of the trail binary, as well as any keys used to digitally encode or sign the binary.
It's my understanding that the GPL requires only that you give source code to people that that have legally acquired the binary from you. It does not require that you provide source to anyone else, even if they otherwise legally obtained your binary. The trick here is that it also requires that you may *NOT* prevent anyone who legally obtains the source code from you from further distributing it to others, even to people who have not received any binaries from you, with the exact same freedoms and limitations applying to whoever receives it from them, so if somebody legally obtained the binary from somebody else, but not the source code, when you only gave source code to people who purchased licensed binaries from you, being GPL compliant yourself, then the person they got it from has committed the violation and not you.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
There was some good discussion on the firehose article prior to this making the front page.
While I will absolutely agree that I misunderstood my initial reading of the GPL v2 text, I think there does seem to maybe be a gap in licensing options for FOSS developers. I do a little software development for fun (I am by no means a programmer; I know a little C# and used to actively develop a number of addons for a popular MMO using Lua), but that's it. Even then, I don't personally like the idea that someone else might take my weeks or months of work, tweak it a bit, and start turning a profit on it.
Obviously, the easiest solution is to just not release your source code - but there's a lot to be gained from letting others see your source, learn from it, make suggestions or patches, etc. So are there any open source licensing models currently in use in the real world that allow for source and binary distribution but prohibit profiting off of doing so? Can such a license (essentially a contract) be legally enforced?
Even if it's legally permissible to charge for compilation, distribution, or even modification of GPLed source, up to and including putting DRM or other anti-piracy measures in the compiled binaries, does that necessarily make it okay? OSS is very much community-driven. Is the general consensus that because people can profit off someone else's work, they should? I'm more interested in these aspects of the original question. I've already had an interesting enough e-mail exchange with the developer of DOSBox Turbo and learned enough about his perspective on the matter. I think the bigger question is how we as developers and users look at GPL in general and whether or not it's the open source panacea I more or less believed it was (whoops).
I'm a geek girl. Seriously.
You always have a right to use GPL code whether or not you agree to its terms.
You have no right to *COPY*, above and beyond whatever sense of copying is necessary to simply utilize the software in the first place, GPL code without agreeing to its terms.
But in this sense, the GPL is basically no different than any other type of copyright notice which says something to the effect of no portion of the work may be copied without permission... the GPL only differs in that it explicitly describes what entails getting permission to copy, which is agreeing to its terms.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
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.
Just b'cos Android is based on Linux doesn't mean that Android apps have to be GPLed.
I wrote a small Drupal module and found a website that was selling it for $50, see the relevant /. article and commentary. I was upset at first but then figured, meh, if his business is illegally selling software, then his business won't last. The Drupal community became involved as well. The good news is that he changed his business model, took down the "$50 to download this module" payment button, and started selling consulting services around it. I suppose an article on slashdot publicly shaming your business can have that effect. :)
sysadmins and parents of newborns get the same amount of sleep.
Yeah, but under the GPL, he doesn't have to give what he got away. He can keep it for internal consumption, he can resell it (and that's the scenario where the source code having to go out comes in) or he can even give it away. Nobody can tell him what price he can resell it for. RMS himself used an example where he put a hypothetical price of $1B to a GPLed software, and said that it's perfectly okay to charge that amount for selling the software, provided the sources accompany the binaries. The price limit only comes up if he's already sold/gifted the binaries but not provided the source, and in this scenario, he can't charge more than the cost of distribution.
If the copyright owner doesn't care that someone isn't respecting the copyright license they distributed their code under, they are the only ones with power to enforce it. No number of angry users can do anything or demand anything else. Any infringement is between the original copyright owner and DOSBot/DOSBox Turbo. If DOSBot say none of their code is GPL, the users can't do anything about it. If it turns out they're using GPL code, the infringement does not involve the users at all.
But the reason it's called a third party is that it had no direct transaction w/ the first party. What 3b & c seem to describe is that the first party sold/gave the binaries to the second party, and a written offer to the source, which the second party may or may not have availed. So now, if the second party wants to sell/give this to the third party, it would normally be violating the GPL, since it doesn't give the sources, which it may not have. Hence, the GPL tries to put the responsibility on the first party.
Honestly, I think that is ridiculous. What the GPL should have done should have been to put the burden on the second party. Tell them, 'You want to sell/give this software to another customer/friend of yours, the responsibility of providing that to them lies w/ you, not your supplier. If your supplier has promised to provide you the sources, and you want to redistribute this software, it's your responsibility, not theirs, to provide them the source. Your supplier owes nothing to your friend or customer - he only owes something to you, if he didn't provide it in the first place.' In other words, it's totally the second party's responsibility to see that anybody it sells/shares the binaries w/ gets the source as well.
However, since the FSF, like any true Marxist entity, doesn't believe in holding people responsible for their own actions, it put the burden of doing the 'right thing' on the first party, rather than the second in v2. Instead of correcting that in v3, it tries to do damage control by stating that the first party only owes something to a third party if they've directly dealt w/ the third party. But they haven't, which is why they are called third parties. Obviously, the retards @ the FSF don't have the balls to write a license that dings the people actually responsible for a particular license violation, if they happen to be freetards who may have just gotten the binaries, didn't give a shit about the source code and don't have a clue about how to distribute it downstream along w/ the binaries, but still want to do right by the third party. And now, they're totally nebulous about what the responsibility of the first and second parties are.
Ok, losing my moderations now, but still going to post. You're right, but GP (AC) was debunking the claim of GGP (faedle) that the source should be produced to "ANYBODY requesting it for the price of materials". GP's response was "Not anybody" - just the people 1st party distributed to. You're response still debunks GGP's claim, but fine-tunes GP's claim in that it's not just the people 1st party distributed to (2nd parties), but any party distributed to (be it from 1st, 2nd or another 3rd party). :)
In short: GGP is still wrong, GP was mostly right but subtly wrong, and you're Todd Knarr
If somone bought that $3.99 app, demanded and received the source code, am I right in thinking that they would then under the terms of the GPL, be able to post that source code on the web for free to anyone who wanted a copy, thus enabling people to compile the app for free, with no one ever again having to buy the binary in order to access the source code?
Or perhaps that they may have to make trivial modifications before redistributing it in order the make it a derivate work?
(1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
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?
If they expected something like that to be enforced, they should have made sure a clause to that effect was part of the license under which the software was released.
From a practical point of view, though - attempting to track something as ephemeral as all previous developers' intentions would be a royal pain in the keister.
#DeleteChrome
What kind of crazy world do we live in where someone can own a multiple hundred dollar smartphone made by a large, faceless corporation, pay for the plan that allows this device to connect to a network and send/receive calls and data and yet this person feels that a measly four bucks, the cost of a cup of coffee that they buy every day without giving it a second thought, four bucks is considered expensive for some software that took many, many man-hours for an individual person to develop (even if based on open source, the actual app didn't spring fully-formed from the source repository of DOSBox). Some software that allows them to relive their childhood, play some great games that they remember from the dawn of gaming and a measly four bucks is so expensive that it's a "small" fee?
Seriously, get a grip!
Specialist Mac support for creative pros, Melbourne
Based on a literal reading of Section 3 of the GPLv2, I think the guy you're replying to is actually correct. The offer of source code only needs to be made to the person who bought the object code. But... and it's a big but... that buyer of the object code has the right to extend the source code offer to anyone else if they want.
Nobody is being forced to do anything. If you don't want to distribute under the GPL, then don't distribute code that is derived from other GPL code.
Thanks for the very lively and interesting discussion. The OP e-mailed a few days ago asking for the source code for DosBox Turbo. I informed him that I make available the source code to my users whom I've distributed a binary to and that the GPL specifically allows for this. I also make available the source code to the upsteam DosBox devs, and forwarded them copies not too long ago. Furthermore, I've contacted the aDosBox devs and offered to port many of my improvements into the free aDosBox software for everyone to benefit. I've never heard back from the aDosBox devs, and I am assuming it is a dead project, as there has been no activity in over a year and no response to my messages in over 4 months.
While I respect the OP's opinion that (actual price on Google play is $3.49) is too much to pay (don't forget Google takes 30% off the top), the reality is, a majority of my time is spent providing user support, fixing bugs in various Android devices that my users have, and implementing new features and suggestions from my user-base. I've amassed a collection of no less than 8 different Android devices, so that I can reproduce a wide range of reported bugs.
The OP and I may disagree on what my time is worth; however, we did have a constructive discussion about perhaps moving to a model of charging for the value add-ons (which I currently provide for free), although, I'm not sure how easy that would be within the Google Play framework. I also suggested to him that there were numerous avenues for him to obtain a copy of the binary free of charge if price was a factor (one only has to search the various Android warez sites) and that I had no problems with him going that route.
While the OP may disagree with me, I believe that being able to charge for GPL software (and comply with the GPL) allows for development of better software with features and bug fixes that would normally never occur. Believe me, it is very time-consuming to sit around for hours answering user e-mails, or spending hours to fix hard to reproduce bugs that occur only on a specific version of Android or a specific device. Few, if any people, would do that kind of tedious work for free.
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?
What "rights" or "understandings" of the past developers? Their right, their understandings, are defined by the GPL that they chose to license their software under. The GPL allows for payment. The only thing the GPL disallows is denying access to the source code.
I think you're mis-reading Section 3. It doesn't say you need to distribute the source on demand to ANYBODY; it says you must either distribute it with the binary, provide an offer with the binary to distribute it for the cost of the media, or pass along the offer you received from upstream (if you're just re-distributing a binary you didn't compile). It seems pretty clear to me that this is only meant to apply if you're giving/selling the binary to someone. You are not compelled to give the source code away for free independent of the binary. (But anyone you sell the binary to can ask for a copy of the source, then re-distribute the source themselves if they wish.)
As they did, by choosing a copy-left licence.
Not at all. The intentions of the previous developers are, for all practical purposes, described by the license under which they chose to distribute their contributions.
I don't draw the line.
that's the whole point of the article, me thinks.
what to do? dunno. warez their application. lobby dosbox to do an official version.
sue them. have fsf sue them - this is actually what you should do, buy it, request the source and when denied sue them.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Bottom line: The requirement to provide source code does not kick in unless you're distributing the binary to the person who is asking for the source code; the person you've given the source code is then free to redistribute it if they wish. Most people deal with this part of the GPL by simply posting the code publicly (accessible to anyone who wants it), but there is no requirement to do so.
So DOSBox Turbo is in fact abiding by the GPL, while DOSBot is not.
If somone bought that $3.99 app, demanded and received the source code, am I right in thinking that they would then under the terms of the GPL, be able to post that source code on the web for free to anyone who wanted a copy, thus enabling people to compile the app for free, with no one ever again having to buy the binary in order to access the source code?
Or perhaps that they may have to make trivial modifications before redistributing it in order the make it a derivate work?
no need to make trivial modifications - as long as you too adhere to gpl.
back on the symbian early days of smartphone apps the way some people got around this was to for example make a gameboy emulator - but if you wanted sound and some other extra features you had to pay for a registered version which got you some plugins to enable the functionality. now, you could take the source and code those parts yourself too(but being such a bitch symbian was.. I don't think anyone coded a free sound plugin for goboy).
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
The person who does the "official" Windows build of XChat charges for it as well.
if the answer isn't violence, neither is your silence / freedom of expression doesn't make it alright
Creative Commons has a non-commercial license. While it sounds good at first, non-commercial licenses tend to be troublesome in the real world. There are a lot of scenarios, details, where it just doesn't work out too well. However ...
You asked if the general consensus is that free software shouldn't be sold for profit. Some think so, many don't. In practice, the fact that any buyer can give it away for free, or sell it cheaper, means that free software is rarely if ever sold with a profit on the software itself. The profit is normally on support and such. Why would you buy Red Hat when you can get the exact same software from CentOS free, for example. You would only pay Red Hat if you want their support services, update servers, and other value add services. Red Hat can't profit on the actual software itself because the software is available free from CentOS .
Is it okay to profit from OSS related services?
Most of Red Hat's revenue goes into supporting free software, such as paying their staff of developers who constantly contribute to OSS. For that reason, most businesses "around" free software have been of enormous benefit to the community.
Even there, Red Hat is the exception - most people CAN'T get customers to pay for free software, so the question of whether or not you SHOULD sell it is moot. It doesn't matter if you should charge money or not, when no-one is willing to pay anyway.
Therefore, in practical application, GPL is normally non-commercial anyway, but without the problems of the explicitly non-commercial licenses.
SVN repo for project is empty. Site has no contact address. Reported site for abuse.
My blog
FYI, DOSBox is GPLed, and both apps in question are ports of DOSBox to Android.
Not a sentence!
Actually, source need only be distributed to the people you distribute a binary to. So they are well within their rights to ONLY provide source to people who pay them for the binary. Once they do, they may NOT restrict you from freely re-distributing it if you so choose.
You sound like you are trying to be reasonable in all of this - you're trying to work with upstreams, you haven't said no to source requests, your pricing is not high etc. However there's a risk you'll run into issues:
It may be worth including the source to inside the apk - that way you can head off any requests for the source with a response that they are distributed alongside the binaries (which is close to what you want to do - distribute to those who financially contribute) and you should buy the binary to get the source :-). As it stands (unless you are already including the source in the apk), someone who hasn't purchased the binary can ask you for the source and you're obliged to fulfil the request (for a reasonable fee). The 0.74 DosBox source compresses down to under 900Kbytes with xz but I don't know how big your apk is.
Further, it seems that at the moment the DosBox Turbo subversion repo on Google code is empty. It doesn't do your reputation any good - it would be better if that area didn't exist or had instructions on where to find the real source.
The DosBox devs don't appear militant (the issue id's use of DosBox on Steam was settled amicably) so it's unlikely you will be hit by a GPL violation from someone with real copyright on DosBox.
You should be able to charge for the work you do but make sure you get snagged on licence gotchas.
Nobody said that. The point was that many of the most popular apps appear to be GPLed software without meeting the requirements of the GPL. It has nothing to do with android itself. I have not taken a look at the list, but that is my interpretation of the comment.
Only if it's GPLv3. GPLv2 wouldn't require them to give you the keys as the "Tivo Clause" hadn't been written yet.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
Why is this marked Troll? It shouldn't be marked Troll. It is informative, and has a perspective on GPL v2 3(b) that hasn't been expressed so far in the discourse.
Hilarious ... that's like saying, if I steal a car, and then spend weeks servicing it, tuning the engine, doing minor repairs, and giving it a new paintjob, then I damn well deserve to be allowed to sell it.
The FSF is controlled by a certain person known as RMS, who has certain extremistic views on free software. Any and all closed-source software is evil and must not be touched. Fine. He is entitled to HIS opinion, I'm entitled to mine.
What HE wants to "clarify" about the GPL does not concern me. I have the licence and I get to interpret it (within legal limits) as the text allows. We KNOW that RMS wants to "tighten" the GPL to make it more contagious etc etc. RMS would like it very much that when microsoft the company ran any GPL application on any of their computers, they could be forced to open up their software. That's what he really wants. It's not legally feasable to try this right now, but that would be the end goal for him.
When I write code, it gets licenced under GPL V2. No "or any later version". What if RMS suddenly wants to make GPL V4 say: "An author who has released an application under GPL, is required to put all sourcecode he writes on the internet."
I will provide sourcecode to anbody who has (bought) the binary.
If somone bought that $3.99 app, demanded and received the source code, am I right in thinking that they would then under the terms of the GPL, be able to post that source code on the web for free to anyone who wanted a copy, thus enabling people to compile the app for free, with no one ever again having to buy the binary in order to access the source code?
Yes. But this introduces a fork danger, because who's going to roll all the changes from the main DOSbox codetree into the Android DOSbox? The guy who's currently selling it isn't likely to put as much time into updating it if it's not bringing him any cash.
The price for DOSbox Turbo isn't unreasonable, the guy doesn't seem malicious (heck, all of his other apps are free), he's just failed to adhere strictly to the letter of the GPL. Given the number of people who've explained why, and the fact that he himself has read and commented on this thread, I fully expect that he'll build the "written offer" into his next version, and we can all go back to arguing about the number of slashvertisements we've been seeing lately....
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
GPLv3 6(b) only applies if you distributed the binaries in a physical form (on physical media or embedded in a physical object, e.g. firmware).
6(d) applies for copies downloaded over a network, and in that case does not offer the option of a "written offer", only equivalent (and for no extra charge) access to the source; it further clarifies that it does not need to be the same server, but that it be clear and obvious where you can obtain the source and that it is available at the time the binary version is downloaded. Take down the binary, you can take down the source. This mode of distribution basically satisfies v2 3(a), the v2 3(b) clause (written offer) is not allowed for network-distributed binaries under v3.
Under v3, you only have to provide a written offer if you've provided the binary code in a physical format (CD-ROM, embedded firmware) and didn't include the source code in a physical format.
6(a) is when you provide both binary and source code together, both in a physical form.
6(b) is when you provide binary in a physical form, and provide a written offer, either for physical media (for a "reasonable cost"), or for a network download (at no extra cost). That offer is available to ANYONE who possesses the object code, not just people you've distributed the object code to.
6(d) says if you provide a binary download, you MUST provide access to the source code as well (for as long as the binary is available for download).
Under v2, 3(a) becomes 6(a) and 6(d) are basically the same (6(d) provides clarification of what "accompany" means for a download), and 3(b) becomes 6(b), but only for physical copies, not for downloads.
Or ignore those that charge and get the one with the source available...
http://code.google.com/p/adosbox/downloads/detail?name=aDosBox-v0.2.5.apk
Taking your description of the situation as accurate and complete - and since you don't seem to understand the difference between charging for the app and things that are covered by the GPL, this makes this all rather dubious - you should report the app that refuses to pass along the source to the store, as that is a GPL violation. The other guy, well, this is the part you misunderstand. Although it is pretty common to distribute derived source openly, the GPL actually requires it be made available only to those who have received the binary (when the primary distribution is by binary). So he may not be entirely right, but he's more right than you: you have no GPL-given right to demand the source unless you have first received the binary. The fee for the latter has not one damned thing to do with the GPL.
tl;dr: you are not doin' it right
Your troll is worthless. There is no physical-object analogy, but one is coming: I copy the CAD design for a piece of plastic furniture being sold at huge profits. I then use my 3d printer to produce the same furniture at a slightly lower price than the original, and offer a free download of the CAD with it (the originator charged a nominal fee to pay for his server.) Since the CAD file is GPL licensed, perfectly within my rights. To continue business at his higher price, he may have to start competing in other ways: offer a warranty of basic function, have better availability, guarantee replacement turnaround, etc.
So then we both succeed in our various niches. But I find a way to improve the design and therefore more durable printed furniture. The originator is within his rights to copy my improvement back into his product.
The GPL isn't about compensating people for group projects....
The $3.99 guy is within his rights not to give you the source code of his app. If you buy it, then he's obligated to give it to you, because he's distributing a binary program that has GPL'd code. Afterwards, you are free to distribute that source code all you want. That's how GPL works.
--
Stay tuned for some shock and awe coming right up after this messages!
Problem is that 3b/6b make no distinction, nor even any attempt to distinguish b/w those who have the object code or binaries, vs those who have squat, but are just asking for the source code anyway, so that they can mooch off it for other reasons. Remove 6b altogether, and simply state that binaries have to go with the source at the same time - no compromises. That solves this problem for the code recipient, since s/he is no longer at the 'mercy' of the distributor, while at the same time, the distributor now owes third parties i.e. the public at large, squat. That way, all confusion is eliminated.