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."
Charge but continue to contribute (Score:5, Insightful)
Kudos to you and thanks for bringing the game back (Score:3, Insightful)
Sour grapes are what that man is feeling. He wishes either that he could have done what you have done or that is probably hoping you ask if you can mollify him by giving him some money. No matter the case, he is wrong. There's absolutely nothing wrong with making money from GPL'd software... but you have to offer up the code. So:
Offer up the code. Where can I download it? Your code, BTW. The Apple app code.
Re:Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed, If you've provided the link to your site in the released game with the information that the source is available, then you've complied with the GPL. If you're really bothered, then donate the profits to an Open Source game development. But personally, I think $2 is a perfectly reasonable fee for a decent game. If I don't want to pay the fee, I can grab the source and compile it for myself.
No Worries! (Score:5, Insightful)
one of the original developers of XPilot told us he feels adamantly that we're betraying the spirit of the GPL by charging for it
No, you're not.
You're betraying what he feels is the spirit of the GPL. However, the GPL was specifically designed to allow for such charging. If he didn't like the GPL, he and the other "original" developers should have chosen a different license. The fact that he didn't understand what rights he was transferring by choosing the GPL is his own fault.
I appreciate that this developer is put off by your fees. However, he is free to take your efforts (the GPL'd code you've published) and release the application for free.
I think you've gone above and beyond by hearing the guy out and expressing your concerns. However, you're following the rules HE set out.
Don't even see the point of arguing (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
Not only that, but anyone who has a problem with the price is free to download the code and put it up for a lower price, free, whatever they want. Which is, of course, the spirit of the GPL.
Even better, this GPL'd code can be used as a basis for other GPL apps. The barrier to get more software up there is lowered. I say, thanks for putting this up there! Online games that can be played over 3G are sadly rare, hopefully this makes it a little easier to put more of them up and I can finally get some excitement on the crapper.
Charge 'em! (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you know that the FSF charges for GPL software if you buy a copy from them? (Yes, you can also get it for nothing. That's not the point.) So don't feel bad about charging. Yes, give the source away too; if someone else decides to put a version built from the same source in the App Store, they can (assuming they get it past Apple's asinine guardianship, of course).
Re:Yes (Score:4, Insightful)
But I mean, you could make the same sort of argument about GPL'd software for Windows. You need to pay for the Windows license before you can run it. The application code is free; the platform is another matter entirely.
Re:Yes (Score:2, Insightful)
Your Ethics look fine to me (Score:5, Insightful)
The GPL, as many have commented, does not preclude or even discourage charging money for the software. The primary ethical thrust of the GPL is that your users must have unbridled freedom to use, modify, and redistribute the software you have provided to them. You appear to have met that cleanly.
But, as a considerate human being, you've also taken the time to consider the original authors personal wishes. That's a gracious thing to do, but obviously it's now landed you in an awkward position. Candidly, I'm with you; I'm rather biased, and think that folks deserve to receive compensation for their work on Free Software. However, it's up to you to decide how far to go in satisfying their personal wishes. So, it remains an interesting ethical dilemma, but I think it has nothing to do with the GPL.
Of course, if this is all a clever marketing stunt, and you're in cahoots with the original developer to create a fake controversy, then my hat is off to you, sir. :-).
Cheers,
Jeremy
Re:The money is not the issue (Score:2, Insightful)
The GPL applies to the source. Not the binary.
The only connection to the binary it has is that you must make the source available for free to anyone who buys/downloads the binary.
Naturally, they may turn around and reproduce the binary themselves and not have any of the app store restrictions on it.
Re:No ethical problem at all (Score:3, Insightful)
He's talking about reinterpreting the document at whim.
The US Constitution was ratified through the proper channels to rectify this. It wasn't just a matter of some one saying "it's a living document, so we'll just interpret it to mean whatever we want it to say".
Re:The Charging is fine... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Here is how GPL does allow (Score:5, Insightful)
'You did everything right, and nothing wrong. I am more thinking that the people who are angry are jealous that they did not think of it first.
Agreed.
' I am more thinking that the people who are angry are jealous that they did not think of it first.' ...or, another possibility: the author of the original XPilot appears to have a legitimate (but not legally protected) vision of the legacy of his work, and is trying to protect it/disguise it behind his (clearly flawed) interpretation of the GPL.
It would be much better if the author just communicated that his wish would be to have software based on his own be free-as-in-beer, acknowleding that the new authors are under no legal obligation to do so. The authors of this new software are legally free to do whatever they want, including telling the original author to piss off. Would they feel morally comfortable about doing so, is the real question? This is really a moral and/or friendship dispute, not a legal one.
Re:Yes (Score:1, Insightful)
It doesn't prevent people from creating GPL'ed apps that work only on a $100 Windows platform...
If the source is available, then it's your right to distribute. How you distribute it, it is up to your own capability (the fee required to submit the app into the App Store) and media (internet fees, paper, CDs, etc).
Any problem is in using app store (Score:3, Insightful)
The use of the app store and a locked down (in the case of users without developer licenses!) platform somewhat undermines the usual assumption that by providing the source code anyone has the power to modify the program running on their device. Which is unfortunate and alters the conditions from those that GPL software is usually distributed under, since it's harder for someone to take advantage of that source to modify the app's behaviour or to undercut your price. But that's really a problem with the platform and the app store, which you haven't created. And, at the end of the day, anybody else is still free to pay for the developer license - like you did - then put the resulting work onto app store for free.
Arguably the really question is whether you ought to "compensate" for the deficiencies of the app store (cost as a barrier to entry, devices locked down) by distributing your app for free. I don't see that that's necessary.You have running costs on the server, right? So you're providing a service and it's right that you feel justified in charging for it. Not to mention the understandable wish to make back the money you paid for developer kits and to get compensation for your time.
Also, it's not against the spirit of the GPL to charge for the software, by the FSF / RMS's definition. It might be against the spirit that the original developers intended their contributions to be under but then they should have chosen a different license. Arguably the developer who got in contact with you is - though presumably acting in good faith - the one who truly is violating the spirit of the GPL. Why? Because he's trying to apply additional restrictions which all the other contributors explicitly disallowed when they used the GPL for their own code. He probably doesn't see it that way and I certainly don't think there's any reason to think he's being *bad*. But he is not correct in his reasoning, IMO.
If you really wanted to make a gesture over this issue (though neither the GPL nor ethics would seem to require you to) you could try some of the following:
a) donating more code to the original project, ensuring its merged upstream, if you haven't already
b) donating money to the project
c) provide an alternate apps store download that is free but cannot connect to your Xpilot-iPhone server (then if other people want to provide the service for free they can, whilst your paying customers get to use the service you're providing)
d) lower the price (or make it free) when your developer licenses (and, optionally, your time) have been paid for. Making this somewhat like a bounty system, which gets used in OSS anyhow.
c) feels quite impure in some ways, so I'd think a) and b) are probably the appropriate way to go, with d) if you feel extra generous!
Re:Yes (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure you can - you just have to have a Mac to do the compilation, pay the $99 developer fee for your certificate and submit it for whatever price you deem fit. The point of this whole discussion is that the code is still free and this team is following the letter as well as the spirit of the GPL. Anyone who wants can download the code and do with it whatever they want - including directly competing with these guys.
Of course, if you did all that and paid the developer fee, you may want to charge a nominal fee in order to recoup your outlay. Say, two or three bucks?
Re:Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
Because A) It restricts you to an -expensive- platform, x86 Mac OS X B) I believe you need to pay Apple I think like $99 to get it on the app store
I might be completely incorrect or misinformed, but I would also imagine that if someone were to submit a duplicate of an existing app for free, even if it were perfectly legal, that Apple would not allow it. Stranger things have happened.
Re:Yes (Score:2, Insightful)
It is available, yes. But it is not really usable with the full freedoms of the GPL. While this may be legal for use under the GPL, I would consider this very unethical.
What freedom would that be? Software that is BSD licensed is free without restrictions whereas the GPL does restrict the use of code to only other GPL'ed software and requires that you provide the source to any distributed derivatives. That is a restriction on freedom.
There is a lot of code that is GPL'ed which will only work on Linux. What if I don't want to use linux? I am forced to either install linux or rewrite large portions of code in order to create a usable version for the platform of my choice. How is this situation different?
Re:Yes (Score:3, Insightful)
I think $2 is a perfectly reasonable fee for a decent game.
Not only is it reasonable, but it's almost expected to be asked for compensation for porting the game to a new platform. It sounds like he's not charging for the game itself, he's charging for the work in porting it if you want to play it on the iPhone. That sounds completely reasonable to me.
Re:Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
With the iPhone you cannot redistribute the program for free.
You appear to be confusing free as in speech and free as in beer.
The GPL does not mandate that redistribution be free as in beer. As a matter of fact, it repeatedly accounts for fees associated with redistribution, yes?
Perhaps you can point at the specific clause that declares paying $99/yr or whatever to get your binaries signed for distribution is a violation? Didn't think so.
Re:Simple (Score:2, Insightful)
And while you're at it, have him look at Settings / General / About / Legal in the iPhone and see just how much free software Apple embedded into that project.
But just TRY and get a copy of the iPhone source.
Re:Your First Mistake (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
Guess what; you can't compile Linux without a computer either.
Re:Spirit of the GPL (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, is this spirit being upheld when you buy the app from the App Store? Do you have freedom to distribute copies of it to other iPhone users? Can you change the software and run your changed version? It's pretty clear that people who buy it from the App Store don't have these freedoms;
Where does it specify in the GPL that you must redistribute on the exact device and channel you receive it on? I do not see that. Redistributing simulator binaries is the freedom to distribute the program, just on a different platform, and distributing via Cydia is redistributing it on the same platform but a different channel. The GPL is satisfied.
Re:Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Simple (Score:5, Insightful)
He's not obligated to provide the SDK license, nor is he obligated to provide access to the AppStore. He's obligated to redistribute the GPL'd source code which he is. Hell, he could charge another $2.99 for the ability to download the source code if he wanted and that's all perfectly fine. Also, you are seriously confusing the concept of the why GPL'd source code is free. It's not free as in there is no cost. It's free in that you will always have access to the source and the ability to modify it as you see fit, so long as you also extend that freedom on to others.
Just because it's GPL does not mean it's also $0.00.
The submitter has done absolutely nothing wrong, and the original dev shouldn't have released the source under the GPL if he felt that the app should never be charged for. He should have released it under a non commercial license that explicitly restricted the sale of the software.
Re:No ethical problem at all (Score:3, Insightful)
You're fine, since you made the source available (Score:4, Insightful)
The GPL is quite clear on this. If the original publishers didn't want it to be charged for, they should have created their own license. 15 years ago they didn't cover their bases, and have since abandoned the code? You're fine. If they want a complete free on available, let them release one. After all, it is the GPL. THAT is the spirit of the license, and by my reckoning you have done an admirable job of honoring it. Thank you for your contribution.
yes, it is against the spirit of gpl (Score:4, Insightful)
Technically speaking, you're not doing anything wrong.
Morally speaking, you are. Apple iPhone is a fenced product in complete control of Apple. There is nothing free about it. Releasing GPL software for iPhone is in direct contradiction of GPL spirit.
Note that this is different from windows. There anybody is free to just pay for the OS and then download any compilers, any code, anything and therefore it is not ideal but OK from the perspective of GPL. iPhone on the other hand is a piece of hardware that is effectively owned by Apple and not the person who bought it.
Re:Yes (Score:1, Insightful)
That's a problem with Apple system not GPL or the articles's app. He can charge whatever for GPL code as long as he distributes the sources.
Apple forbidding you to recompile and run/distribute it in the phone you paid for is a problem between you and Apple.
Re:Yes (Score:3, Insightful)
It is quite usable with the full freedoms of the GPL. Though it would most likely take a decent amount of porting to convert Objective-C to Java*, I could take the code they provide, modify it, and re-release it for the Android Marketplace, and I could release it for free or for a price. A Windows Mobile programmer could port it to their platform. A Palm Pre programmer could port it to their platform. They could do it all without even the slightest restriction from Apple or the iPhone. Another iPhone programmer could modify it and re-release it, even.
Apple making restrictions on their platform does not in any way make restrictions on other platforms. We could take, modify, and port it if we wanted (and didn't instead just directly port from the original XPilot source). That is in the spirit of the GPL. The fact that the author chose to make it for and release it on a platform with restrictions doesn't change that.
*: To the purists: Fine, fine, to whatever Android's specific Java-lookalike is.
Fuck the original developers (Score:3, Insightful)
You can't support open source software and then get in a mood because someone does something with your code that you may not necessarily like but follows the licence and especially if they go out of their way to be helpful and kind to the original community/developers.
The original developers are just being dicks and trying to guilt trip you into doing things their way. You might as well stick with closed source, Microsoft, solutions if you want to be bullied into doing things one way.
Re:Yes (Score:3, Insightful)
By that logic, GPL-derived software that's locked under a software patent is still free, as you simply have to pay them the fee to use the patent.
The FSF disagreed, however.
Morons (Score:3, Insightful)
The usual moronic nonsense. As long as the source is available from the developers, it's fine. Charging for the software is also fine according to the GPL. This "spirit of the GPL" crap comes from morons who can't read the license, or from FSF fanatics who want everything to be free as in beer regardless.
As for whether you can download the source from Apple, that's totally irrelevant. As to why you can't compile and distribute the same app via Apple's store, WHAT THE HELL DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH THE ORIGINAL DEVELOPERS OR THE GPL? Go talk to Apple, you morons.
Morons. Idiots trying to start a flame war because they have nothing better to do with their time - the bane of the OSS movement (not to mention the rest of the world).
Re:Yes (Score:3, Insightful)
His point was that the app store is governed - you have no idea whether Apple will ever let your app make it into the actual store (see Google Voice). They might perfectly well say that it is an exact duplicate of a for-pay app, and it is therefore rejected. Remember, Apple takes 30%, so it's in their best interest to put more apps behind the pay wall. And we already know that Apple can reject any app for any reason (FCC inquiries notwithstanding).
More specifically, I think he was pointing out that Apple might treat forks as duplicates, leaving the initial submitters the only ones able to earn money for the software on that platform, regardless of the source being available. That said, I think what they're doing is all right, as they are keeping the source available.
One thing to add: if the original author had said "That's great, nice work!" when it first came up, this wouldn't have been an issue for this project. I recommend not putting too much (if any) stock in what the original author thinks. There will always be people with different views on how open source projects should be handled, and plenty of bickering about it. If we didn't have licenses like the GPL which spell out how code can be used, and instead had to get the author's permission, open source software would never have progressed as far as it has.
Of course, if you're feeling guilty, you could always invest any extra money you make into developing a version for Android, or make a donation to some project that needs it.
Re:Yes (Score:4, Insightful)
Because A) It restricts you to an -expensive- platform, x86 Mac OS X B) I believe you need to pay Apple I think like $99 to get it on the app store
A) $199: Apple Mac Mini Intel Core Duo Processor 1.66 Ghz 607LLA on aBay, free shipping. [ebay.com]
B) True, but GPL is about Freedom, not freebeer, nor a free redistribution and marketing channel. I know you were just referring to a barrier for putting it on the app store as a free app, but I think a lot of people are confusing "Freedom" with "it shouldn't cost me any money for things that are completely out of the software developer's control."
This is the key issue (Score:5, Insightful)
'Remember when TiVo went by the letter of the GPL (v2) but not the apparent spirit? A new section of GPL v3 was born.'
This is actually the most relevant point in the entire discussion. The iPhone app store falls foul of exactly this clause in GPL3, created to address a very similar issue. John Sullivan at the FSF addresses the problem here:
http://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/why-free-software-and-apples-iphone-dont-mix [fsf.org]
"Apple's approach runs headlong into an important part of the GPL's copyleft approach -- the principle that anytime someone shares a copy of a GPL-covered program with another person, she also needs to provide that person with the installable, human-readable source code for that program. This ensures that everyone who gets a copy of a program also gets the raw material needed for any study and modification. This freedom is not meaningful if the computer on which the software is meant to run arbitrarily rejects any potentially changed version installed by the user simply because it has not been signed or approved by a "higher" authority. The latest version of the GPL (GPLv3) includes a provision to address the threat posed by this tivoization and put a stop to this method of depriving users of freedom."
So the problem is not that the app is being charged for (this is fine), but that it's on the app store at all. This violates the spirit of the GPL in general (as it makes one of its fundamental freedoms 'not meaningful') and the letter of GPL3. The letter of GPL2 would not be violated (it's a situation the original GPL authors had simply not considered), provided that the app is accompanied by its source code or a written offer to supply it (presumably the source is not included in the app store download, but is the written offer? - it's not enough just to have the source on the personal site of the iPhone version's authors).
Re:rock and a hard place (Score:4, Insightful)
The right thing to do, would have been to contact the original designers and ask for their permission in the first place.
They already gave him permission when they released the code under GPL. Personally, I'd be annoyed if people were contacting me to ask if they can do things that I already covered by releasing my code under a free software license. Maybe I'd be OK with it if it was some very tricky edge case, but "charge money for GPL code" is not a tricky edge case.
Re:Yes (Score:4, Insightful)
While I do understand the worries, taking this to it's logical conclusion would be to dictate what platforms developers can make GPL software for, and make it much dependant on the manufacturers. .NET, which of course have restrictions by Microsoft.
There are GPL apps that are exclusively for Windows, and for
Re:Here is how GPL does allow (Score:3, Insightful)
I completely agree with most of your points here except the bit about 'I am more thinking that the people who are angry are jealous that they did not think of it first'. A lot of people who work on GPL software are strongly against vendor lock in, and the iPhone platform is kind of providing an end run against GPL provisions and I think it does allow effects that the authors of GPL were probably trying to avoid. The original poster's conciliatory tone leads me to believe he would like to fit in with the spirit of the original developers, and not just simply follow the letter of the licence.
The problem is that the iPhone isn't an open platform. It isn't free to get apps into the store, which makes it tricky to release free as in beer apps. People strongly concerned with free as in both speech and beer stuff are probably not interested in a profit share system, but maybe would be interested in a bit of developer time. My advice to the original poster might be to contribute some effort back to the community if that's possible. You and the original developer of this game obviously share some interests, so there's a possibility that you'll share interest in some other project that could really use some developer time.
Re:From the original disgruntled developer (Score:4, Insightful)
The answer to this is simple: If you don't like the terms of the GPL V2, you should not have released your code under those terms. To quote the GPL "You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee."
Provided they are in compliance with every other part of the GPL, the fact that you don't think they are the appropriate vendor is irrelevant; get over yourself.
Re:Yes (Score:3, Insightful)
The spirit of the GPL does not matter. All that matters is the reality of the license.
From the GPLv2: [gnu.org]
Even though apple sends goons who force you to sign papers , strip search you, and take your lunch money [stevehanov.ca] in order to download binaries to a real iphone, that has no bearing on the freedom of the source code. The GPLv2 or GPLv3 explicitly allows anyone to sell GPL'd binaries as long as they make the source code available to anyone at no more than your cost of duplication and shipping.
Imagine I personally create a handheld prototype hardware device and port Xpilot to it. There are only two of these made and cost me $2000 each to manufacture these prototypes. I sell one of the device with Xpilot in it. I include a CD with the Xpilot source code with the device. If anyone else wants to compile Xpilot on my prototype device, they would have to buy one from me. They would have to pay me more than $2000 to make it worth my while to bother. And if I say no, I'm not building them anymore because I want to backpack around the world now, am I violating the 'Spirit' of the GPL because I distributed the binaries and sources for a platform which is no longer available? And how would this scenario be different if apple decided to stop selling iphone SDKs? Are you requiring apple's SDK to be open source? or requiring apple's hardware to be open source? why don't you require your intel motherboard to have an open source BIOS as well, seeing that you can't play Xpilot on a PC without paying some BIOS company like Pheonix for the right to boot your computer.
If the XPilot authors did not want anyone selling their software they should have used a different license.
Perhaps the GPLv4 will have an explicit anti-apple clause.
--jeffk++
Re:Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
How are you defining "usable" here? If I download the "normal" XPilot source I cannot do f all with it either unless I have GCC, make and X11. Should the makers of the original XPilot be required to come to my home and install all of these
You get the source. What you actually can or cannot do with it is not their problem, and never has been. That you then need a Mac and XCode to build the iPhone version does NOT restrict any freedoms. There is no virality in the GPL that says that you need to use GPL-ed compilers, editors or operating systems to build from the source.
Re:this seems like the "TiVo" situation to me (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a tricky situation. What if TiVo distributes GPL3 code on their locked down boxes, provides the source, and offers to sell you an unlocked unit for $1 million?
Re:From the original disgruntled developer (Score:3, Insightful)
The history of selling GPL software is long and should not surprise you. Your software has already been sold by numerous Linux distributions (RedHat et al).
What makes these guys any different?
If you want to cash out the $99 you should definitely put it up for sale for free.
If not, you should not complain about someone making money distributing GPL software - they stand on the shoulders of giants doing exactly that.
Re:You Have TWO Problems... (Score:4, Insightful)
You can charge whatever you want. RMS was charging people $150 for copies of Emacs, which is far more than the cost of the "physical act" of copying.
Notice the penultimate part, "scripts to control". That would be the Xcode project files, which he's including.
No. If that were the case, there could be no GPL software for OS X or Windows. It's your responsibility to get your build environment set up, and the GPL makes no promises that that will be free or easy.
I do understand why some people are uneasy about this; in the case of the iPhone there's a completely artificial barrier to development, as opposed to the inherent "barriers" of needing access to a computer and compiler and so forth, but as far as I can tell that makes no difference for the GPL.
Re:Yes (Score:4, Insightful)
The spirit of GPL is not to prevent someone for profiting for their time. As someone already pointed out, there are many distributions of Linux where they charge for the media, support, etc. This is no different as these guys will most certainly have support issues, as well as costs to get it into the app store, and personal time spent porting it. If you don't like the price or the platform, then download the source and compile it for something else.
Where's the beef?
Correct (Score:3, Insightful)
I think people get confused because, in general, GPL implies zero cost software. The reason is that it is hard to sell something when others can give it away for free. I write a GPL'd app and sell it for $50/copy. As required by the GPL, when you purchase it, you get a copy of the code. So you decide that I am way overcharging. You tweak it a bit to your liking, and then sell it for $10/copy. My sales go to zero, since you are selling the same thing for less. Someone else then decides that since it is free software, it should be no cost software, and redistributes what you are selling for nothing at all.
So GPL'd software will strongly tend towards a zero dollar price. However it isn't required that it does so. In the scenario I mentioned, I could continue selling my version for $50. Maybe some people decide know what? We want to support that version and start buying it. Not that likely, but it can happen.
However in all cases, there is nothing saying it MUST cost nothing, it is just the state which it is likely to reach rather quickly, and thus mot authors don't charge to start with, at least not for the software itself. They charge for service or something else.
Re:No ethical problem at all (Score:3, Insightful)
If those wishes are made clearly in advance then I agree. If they pipe up after you've done invested time and money in good faith then tough luck I say. That's the same as trying to take back the freedom they've given you through the licence.
Re:From the original disgruntled developer (Score:3, Insightful)
Stop whining and put your own free version up.
You picked the wrong license, you don't want freedom, you want it used the way you specify. Thats not freedom, that agenda pushing.
Here are the counter points to your issues:
Fair Compensation - Uhm, you didn't want compensation, thats why you chose GPL. You are getting fair compensation, 0, wrong license if you expected to be compensated monetarily for your work. Or, are you saying you picked the wrong license, it obviously wasn't restrictive enough for you, so much for your 'free as in freedom' bullshit.
No sustainable competitive advantage - So ... it won't work ... why exactly are you bitching instead of making and releasing the no charge version?
Alienation of contributors - You mean like how you are alienating him and complaining about the work and effort he put into it?
Limited user base - So you're complaining that someone put for the effort to port it to iPhone, but you haven't bothered to do so. So he added users that you weren't willing to add, and you're complaining about him limiting the potential user base. If you're so worried why don't you port it to every OS and hardware platform ever made.
In reality your just a whiney bitch, period. You and others released your software under the GPL which is very clear in allowing for this. You picked the wrong license and now you want to use something else, too bad. Stop whining about it and appreciate the fact that its still around and someone bothered to port it to one of the most popular/hyped devices on the planet. Take advantage of this to get your name out there and get a job rather than being such a whiney baby about it. This can benefit you if you let it.
If you think its against GPL to distribute through the app store you need to actually read the GPL. Sorry you don't like the license you used, but one of the things in that license is that you cant' go back on it, that is pretty clear and I'm pretty sure you knew that going into it.
You don't actually care about true freedom or you would have used public domain or the like. Personally, I'm a BSD/Apache/MIT license guy, and my software has been used in commercial products helping to make a fair amount of money for a couple companies. Am I disappointed that I don't get a cut? Sure, but I knew when I released the source that it was a possibility, there are also a lot of people using it in their projects who release their code for free as well. The companies using my code know who I am, and its netted me a job. What you don't see me doing is whining about it. You do see me bitching about douche bags who care about pushing their own personal agenda rather than freedom.
Re:From the original disgruntled developer (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry, charging money for distribution is wholly within the spirit of the GPL. You have a point if the distributed binary is not covered by the distributed source, and the fact that it's not easy to build your own binary is questioinable but that was the loophole that GPLv3 fixed.
This group owes you no money, they only owe you source.
Re:yes, it is against the spirit of gpl (Score:3, Insightful)
No, PineGreen, it is not. That is definitely part of the spirit of the GPL.
The point is, if I want to lock my software to kingdom come and sell it, I am free to do so. And if you want to unlock it and give it away, you too are free to do so.
That *IS* the spirit of the GPL. That we can each do whatever we want with the software, and if you don't like what I did, you can do something else.
Don't like the iPhone's rules, don't use it. Don't like my code, change it.
The GPL specifically prohibits use or distribution restrictions. It is perverse for you to flip this spirit on its head.
It's like if I say "borrow my car and go wherever you want in the whole world" it's against the spirit to go to New Jersey. Because I said you could go anywhere and New Jersey is just one place.
The source code is free. Take it anywhere. Even New Jersey.
That is was specifically the source code that was free was a critical choice -- key to the GPL spirit.
Re:No ethical problem at all (Score:2, Insightful)
Yep, you're right, but that doesn't change the fact that if you are going against the wishes/intent of the author who mistakenly chose a license that doesn't do what they wanted you're not being terribly nice. Might even consider it unethical.
I think there is a reasonable expectation that the actual terms of the licence reflect the wishes/intent of the author. I don't expect to have to personally contact every author of anything I find on the internet "Hey you know those license terms, do you really mean it? Can I really, really use it under the stated conditions? Is there anything else you'd like? Are you sure?"
The GPL is not that hard to understand. It very clearly states that selling copies is allowed. If you don't want that and apply the GPL to your work anyway, you're not the sort of person who should be taken seriously by anyone. People like that don't belong in the adult world, they belong in a playground where they can scream "IT'S NOT FAIR!" an fit in with the other children. The poster of this story is under no obligation, moral, ethical or otherwise to stop selling copies. What are they supposed to do, abandon months of work they undertook legally and in good faith? Let someone who can't be bothered reading the license to their own work torpedo their business? Sounds to me like they've been more than fair.
Re:Yes (Score:3, Insightful)
Ditto. I am betting xpilot was sold as parts of distributions since it first started. If he had wanted to control the usage of the software to prevent others from selling it, he should not have used the GPL. As long as you are providing source code, you are in the right. The fact that it requires someone to pay 99 dollars to bring your source code into an executible object on the iPhone is no different than saying they have to buy a computer to do so. You are, in fact giving away the code, and also charging for a distributed binary. I am pretty sure that this is entirely conventional.
More importantly, you are contributing to the iPhone developer community by letting us see how you were able to port the code. This is helpful both in allowing enhanced versions, and as a learning tool.
Thank you,
Re:Barrier for even using the compiled binary (Score:3, Insightful)
I know you were just referring to a barrier for putting it on the app store as a free app
No, it's also a barrier for even using the compiled binary. The $99 isn't just for access to the App Store; it's also for access to install apps that you compiled on an iPod Touch PDA that you bought.
No, it's a barrier that you even need electricity at all! I can't play this on my tabletop with candles, (which even then requires the barrier for owning a table, and candles.. and fire.)
Look, there's a barrier to everything. I can't use SUSE ppc on anything but a PowerPC computer, I can't use Linux ia64 on anything but an Itanium, which are STILL stupid expensive.
That there is a barrier of entry to use the binary is stupid, and unimportant, because if the barrier of entry to use the binary is too high, then DON'T BUY OR DOWNLOAD THE BINARY!!!
If you're bitching that you need an iPhone even to use the source code, then download the source code, modify it for your platform of choice, and then make it interoperable with the iPhones.