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.
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.
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).
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
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.
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
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.
No, developers must release the source code to ANYONE who requests it, regardless of whether they received the binary or not.
Read clause 3(b), the part where it says "any third party". The key word is "any".
No, because they have only to comply with one of the three clauses (a), (b), or (c), and even if they choose (b), they only have to provide the written offer to the receiver of the binary, notwithstanding that the actual offer must be valid for any third party (thereby making 3(c) possible).
You can request the source code of the trail binary, as well as any keys used to digitally encode or sign the binary.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.