5406833
story
Comments: 782 +- Ask Slashdot: The Ethics of Selling GPLed Software For the iPhone on Saturday August 01 2009, @11:23AM
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicgamesclassic.gif); width:55px; height:43px;
classicgames
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicgnu.gif); width:50px; height:76px;
gnu
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicsoftware.gif); width:65px; height:65px;
software
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."
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."
Related Stories
Shaw's Principle:
Build a system that even a fool can use, and only a fool will
want to use it.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.
Yes (Score:5, Informative)
Yes it's fine
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.
Parent
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.
Parent
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.
Parent
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.
Parent
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.
Parent
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.
Parent
Re:Yes (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
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.
Parent
Re:Yes (Score:5, Funny)
I've just always wondered just where it is people are getting all this free beer.
Parent
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.
Parent
Re:Yes (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
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.
Parent
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.
Parent
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.
Parent
Re:Yes (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
Guess what; you can't compile Linux without a computer either.
Parent
Re:Yes (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Yes (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
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.
Parent
Re:Yes (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
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.
Re:No ethical problem at all (Score:5, Interesting)
For now, anyway.
Remember when TiVo went by the letter of the GPL (v2) but not the apparent spirit? A new section of GPL v3 was born.
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.
Sure, the source to this game is available. Hooray for every other iPhone developer. However, if you're not a developer, you can't just install it on your device even if you compile it.
In addition, -if- a developer were to pick up the code and compile it.. they, in turn, can't distribute it outside of the iTunes store. ( I seem to recall Apple being okay with source code distribution when it concerns GPL - but a Google search seems to bring up lots of (old) blog posts about it being prohibited. )
On top of that, there's probably little chance that it would be accepted into the iTunes store, seeing as it's a 1:1 duplicate of an existing app.
Parent
Re:No ethical problem at all (Score:4, Interesting)
Remember when TiVo went by the letter of the GPL (v2) but not the apparent spirit? A new section of GPL v3 was born.
And do you remember the huge, long, debate over whether what Tivo did really *did* violate the "spirit"? I don't think it did, and I think the GPLv3 is an overreaction to a complete non-issue. Even if you do acknowledge there is such a thing as a "spirit" to the contract, you still have to recognize that there are as many different interpretations of that "spirit" as their are users of it.
Parent
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).
Parent
Spirit of the GPL (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course there's a spirit of the licence. You don't think that lawyerspeak is the most important value in life do you? Or that ethics consists of doing the maximum that you can get away with while still squeezing within the letter of the law? In fact, according to its author, the letter of the GPL is less important than its spirit, which is expressed in the preamble:
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; even if they can get the source code from some web site, that's about as much use to them as the printed copies of source code that used to be supplied with IBM mainframes instead of a real online copy you can rebuild and run. So I think the original author had a point; he and his fellow contributors made the software with the expectation that everyone who gets it can freely share and modify it, but here most users cannot.
On the other hand, there are those who don't think this is what the GPL is about. For example Linus has said it's quite okay to distribute locked-down Linux installations that the user can't modify, despite the language about 'freedom' in the GPLv2 licence. So there is certainly room for interpretation.
Parent
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.
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.
Parent
Charge but continue to contribute (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Charge but continue to contribute (Score:4, Interesting)
Lots of people complain about Redhat charging every day.
As for CentOS, it is probably core to Redhat's business, as no body is going to develop an app on Fedora, and deploy on RHEL as you would have to retest everything, may as well use Ubuntu as RHEL if you are moving off Fedora, Ubuntu might even be easier to move to.
CentOS is what people that think they might have to deploy on RHEL for production use for skunkworks projects.
Parent
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: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.
Parent
Re:this seems like the "TiVo" situation to me (Score:4, Interesting)
I can see where your arguments are coming from and I think your opinion makes sense.
However anyone can download the code from their website and compile it on the iphone simulator (which, together with XCode is a free download from Apple). You could argue that you still need a non-free os to run it which won't make RMS happy, but then again on a PC you more often than not have a non free BIOS that's needed to run the OS. And pretty much any computer has a non-free hardware.
Because of this, and other reasons, in my opinion there's nothing wrong with selling a GPL program on the Itunes store as long as anyone who bought it can get the source code.
Parent
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.
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.
The money is not the issue (Score:5, Interesting)
But is it legal to release any iPhone application under the GPL? Apple puts restrictions on what you can do with the application once you've downloaded it - i.e. you're not allowed to redistribute or modify it. Unless all of the copyright holders of the GPL code give their permission to release it under these more restrictive terms, that be a violation wouldn't it?
Don't even see the point of arguing (Score:4, Insightful)
Clever...they figured out step 2! (Score:5, Funny)
Step 1: Port game
Step 2: General controversy over game
Step 3: Profit!
Re:Clever...they figured out step 2! (Score:5, Interesting)
Step 1: Port game
Step 2: General controversy over game
Step 3: Profit!
IMHO this post was scored incorrectly.... this is not just "Funny" but is also just plain smart/insightful. this may have been a clever move, but it was more than that...this was just plain smart. creating controversy (especially among this community) is advertising. i imagine that sales for this game has gone up (and will continue to go up) since this post. i for one will probably pick this game up when i finish this post. like i said, many times controversy => advertisement...and a lot of that advertisement ends up being positive...i mean geeze....look at the tone of this thread... -ryan
Parent
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).
Ethics were not violated. (Score:5, Interesting)
I checked out the authors site and lo! There was the source code and I even downloaded a copy for good measure.
There really isn't any reason that someone who has put a lot of work and money into building/porting/developing/fixing a GPL application can't charge for the complied binary other than having to listen to those who don't wish to pay and are far too lazy/technically lacking to compile their own from the source.
The only person "in the wrong" here was the one complaining.
I own a copy of XPilot for the iPhone as I couldn't resist the classical goodness. The author put a LOT of work into making it exceptionally polished and playable on a platform that it wasn't intended for. Not to mention (as the author did) the cost of development.
That was $3 gladly spent. As much as I rely on free apps, I don't much mind spending >10 on REALLY good portable device apps and >20 on desktop apps here and there. The thing is, they need to be significantly better than average to be "worth buying" in my mind. This is why I actually donate to authors of apps that are one, two or even three cuts above.
Show them some love people and perhaps fewer developers would charge you for the pleasure of initially using it in the first place!
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
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..."?
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.
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.
Parent
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
Parent
Re:Your First Mistake (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
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.
Parent
Re:From the original disgruntled developer (Score:5, Interesting)
Hi Bjorn
I'm interested in getting clarification on some of the points you've raised.
On the other hand, SM are trying to unfairly profit from the man-years of development work that went into XPilot, and that just rubs me (and the other developers that I asked) the wrong way.
How is this significantly different from Red Hat selling RHEL? RH are also trying to profit from the man-years of development work that went into the Linux kernel, associated binaries, tools, environments and configuration efforts.
I see only the XPilot game on the site linked in the summary, but I did find other sites publicising XPilot for the iPhone so I'm not sure whether they have 1 project or many. Regardless, are you suggesting that all GPL projects on the iPhone must have their registration costs and time paid for by an original non-GPL application? They have to purchase bandwidth and computing resources, maintain the web site - why can they not continue to recover those costs too?
Is the source is freely available? Well...
1) They haven't checked in any of their source since June (more than a month), though the latest release is from a few days ago.
2) The availability of the source code isn't clearly (or at all) advertised in the game, and until I complained about it, wasn't even advertised on the app store page.
It's pretty clear to me that they did this port wanting to make money from their development time, which is no different from a commercial venture, but quite different from the expectations of every other contributor of XPilot (and other open source projects). I would even say it's against the spirit of the GPL.
I agree the offer of the source needs to be prominent - I see this has been fixed. But charging for the software is not, and has never been, against the spirit of the GPL. Witness RMS himself charging for EMACS on tape, before online distribution was viable. The GPL itself says you can charge for the act of transferring a copy (what else would you characterise the App Store installation as doing?) What if the charge represents only their own contributions?
As for the source being older than the binary - I'd raise two points.
There are a number of other issues with selling open source software:
The only thing that might make sense charging for, as far as I can see, is the running of the servers, as that is a per-user cost some
Parent