The Ethics of Selling GPLed Software For the iPhone 782
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."
Yes (Score:5, Informative)
Yes it's fine
No ethical problem at all (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Simple (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Bullshit (Score:3, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
Those people are idiots!!!
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney [gnu.org]
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:Yes (Score:5, Informative)
+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 (Score:5, Informative)
Straight from the horse's mouth (Score:4, Informative)
Why was this posted on Slashdot anyway. They may call programmers rude, but this is clearly a case to RTFM before asking.
this seems like the "TiVo" situation to me (Score:3, Informative)
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:Kudos to you and thanks for bringing the game b (Score:3, Informative)
The source-code seem to be downloadable http://7b5labs.com/xpilotiphone [7b5labs.com]
Re:Reminds of this story (Score:5, Informative)
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 [timesonline.co.uk]:
'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.
Re:Yes (Score:3, Informative)
"Spirit of GPL" (Score:2, Informative)
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.
Re:Yes (Score:3, Informative)
Richard Stallman agrees with you (Score:2, Informative)
(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:Kudos to you and thanks for bringing the game b (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:Yes (Score:4, Informative)
Re:No ethical problem at all (Score:3, Informative)
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:Yes (Score:3, Informative)
There are no inherent platform restrictions, take the code and compile it for another platform, as the GPL empowers you to do.
Re:Yes (Score:5, Informative)
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.
From a contributor... (Score:1, Informative)
As one of the original contributors (hint: tractor beams, clusters, modifiers, auto-pilot, bounce code, etc. etc.) I don't feel betrayed at all. You sounded like you did due diligence (although not contacted, that's understandable, I tend to remain trollishly annoymous :-D). As others have mentioned, charging a nominal fee for something you did not 100% construct is fine, and seems to be a standard practice, even for GNU/GPL stuff. In fact I believe charging for delivery/media costs is mentioned in such licenses (if not I expect a billion souls to cry out, and will stand corrected). In fact I can actually think of many other professions where this happens; you have provided a service for which you charge. Shocking concept! I guess you guys have to eat, drink coffee and have warm clothes like most of us who don't have tenure or live in mom's basement. ;-)
You have provided a method for people to get this totally free if they wish even! Power to you!
I'm actually super stoked to see this resurrected in some form - I often brag about how cool the game was. You're almost tempting me to buy an iPhone :-D
(FYI: I was about to submit and the captcha was "reuses"... how apt... it's a sign!)
Re:Yes (Score:3, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
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:IIRC, Ok with the GPL, NOT apple... (Score:4, Informative)
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:Yes (Score:3, Informative)
GPLv2 vs GPLv3 (Score:4, Informative)
The URL referred to makes this case based on a quote of the GPLv3 "Installation Information" clause,
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..."?
Re:No ethical problem at all (Score:3, Informative)
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:Yes (Score:5, Informative)
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.
No (Score:3, Informative)
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:Yes (Score:5, Informative)
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:No (Score:3, Informative)
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:IIRC, Ok with the GPL, NOT apple... (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:Yes (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Yes (Score:3, Informative)
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:The Charging is fine... (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:Simple (Score:4, Informative)
http://opensource.apple.com/ [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.
Its fine (Score:3, Informative)
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:From the original disgruntled developer (Score:5, Informative)
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:Yes (Score:3, Informative)
(the text of the GPL is public domain)
Bzzzt!
-- GPL v2 [gnu.org]
What you can do [gnu.org] is to
. But the fSF discourages it because such changed versions "are almost certainly incompatible with the GPL."
Re:Yes (Score:3, Informative)
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:No (Score:3, Informative)
Re:No ethical problem at all (Score:4, Informative)
"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 [gnu.org]
Preamble
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html#SEC3 [gnu.org]
"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 [gnu.org]
"6.
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:From the original disgruntled developer (Score:3, Informative)
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:this seems like the "TiVo" situation to me (Score:3, Informative)
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 [linux.com]
Re:Yes (Score:4, Informative)
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:No (Score:3, Informative)
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:Yes (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:3, Informative)
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:Simple (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:From the original disgruntled developer (Score:4, Informative)
Now I'm even more confused.
I went and looked at the source [7b5labs.com], 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 [7b5labs.com] - 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 (Score:2, Informative)
But if you browse Trac you'll see the latest sources. Not sure what's going on.
Re:From the original disgruntled developer (Score:2, Informative)
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 (Score:3, Informative)
Re:From the original disgruntled developer (Score:3, Informative)
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 (Score:3, Informative)
"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 [slashdot.org]
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.
Re:From the original disgruntled developer (Score:1, Informative)
I have also contributed source to XPilot and XPilot-ng from which the port was made (and have had some contact with SM). I was wondering when this questions would come up, but as far as I can see the issue is black and white.
I knew exactly what the terms were of supplying code to a GPL'd software product, ignorance is no defence in the eyes of the law. As long as te rules are applied and the source is available (in a buildable form!) then it is legally okay (morally also in my opinion). Infact I would almost argue that this is exactly how the use of the GPL license was inteded to be.
I think it all boils down to the fact that it was the original authors choice to make XPilot GPLv2 in the first place, and they should therefore stand by the original decision. It has definitely not been a secret that it is possible to sell GPLd software. (Okay XPilot was probably one of the first software products that was GPLd actually, so maybe back then things were not so clear).
So to all software authors considering licenses for their software work, consider the implications first.
I understand that BjÃrn cares deeply about XPilot, however Bjorn has been away from the XPilot community for many many years now, and I would hazard to see that there are other authors of XPilot-ng (for example Juha LindstrÃm who made the OpenGL client, and others who made the Polygon handling) that have put many many more hours in than the original authors did.
I think SMs actions can only improve the life in XPilot which has been pretty much dead for some years now, (as long as they get the control issues sorted out which may be difficult considering the devices limitations!)
Re:Yes (Score:3, Informative)
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.