Selling GPL'ed Software (split from: "The current Pandoras price tag")


The difference is that in this case I'm defending a different position than the one that is written in my supposed "holy book".
Ask Bible thumping Christians what they think about shellfish sometime :p Now mind you, I hardly think there's any call to follow FSF's philosophy wholesale or not, as if there's claim it all comes from some divine source, it's just that it somehow often ends up being portrayed that way anyway. I guess the thing I really wanted to and should have said is that that article may seem over the top but I have yet to find an FSF article that doesn't.

The FSF may not have a problem with people selling other people's GPL'ed software, and neither do I when you're talking about things like distro DVDs where the distro also has a website where you can download everything and its sources. But when you're talking about taking one program and selling it online (e.g. on Google Play or the iOS appstore), that's something different in my view, and I do have a problem with it. Maybe the FSF and I have a different position there, and the fact that the article is still on their website indicates that that is the case, but I'm just pointing out that the article was written in a different time - when CD-ROMs were still the main distribution medium for software - and that maybe they should update it and clarify their position.
Okay, it sounds like you're saying you're okay with selling GPLed software if it's on a physical medium so as to cover distribution costs, but last post you said you were okay with those distros selling for profit. Which is it? If it's really for profit who cares where they sell it?

OK, I'm sorry, it was not nice of me to call people who pay for GPL'ed software without having the intention to support the authors of the software, and not because they want it on a physical storage medium because their network bandwidth does not suffice, "stupid". That is indeed not the correct description. They are not necessarily stupid. They are just spectacularly bad at sharing.
How does buying something instead of downloading it for free make you bad at sharing? Are you saying that it's everyone's personal duty to redistribute software? Because if so that sounds pretty asinine. Stop blaming the people who pay for stuff when you want to blame the people who sell it.

If you think however that just because you download something from Google Play, it is guaranteed not to be ad-infested malware, then I do think you're stupid indeed ;) .
If it's a pay app (remember, that's what we're talking about) with any significant number of sales and reviews that aren't full of "don't buy this it's ad-infested malware!" then it's probably not ad-infested malware.
 
That stuff spreads like any type of religious talk. Trying to convert,enlist and defend etc.
Yes, it's always like this, when it's about ideology and belief,

but I really do not care about FSF and I don't want to have these wall of texts about it in even more threads.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The FSF may not have a problem with people selling other people's GPL'ed software, and neither do I when you're talking about things like distro DVDs where the distro also has a website where you can download everything and its sources. But when you're talking about taking one program and selling it online (e.g. on Google Play or the iOS appstore), that's something different in my view, and I do have a problem with it. Maybe the FSF and I have a different position there, and the fact that the article is still on their website indicates that that is the case, but I'm just pointing out that the article was written in a different time - when CD-ROMs were still the main distribution medium for software - and that maybe they should update it and clarify their position.
Okay, it sounds like you're saying you're okay with selling GPLed software if it's on a physical medium so as to cover distribution costs, but last post you said you were okay with those distros selling for profit. Which is it? If it's really for profit who cares where they sell it?
I'm OK with distros selling DVDs for a fee that covers more than just their expenses - making a full distro is a lot of work, and it is not feasible to ask all the authors of all the software in the distro if they're fine with it.

I'm less OK with distros selling their distro online.

I'm not OK with someone selling individual pieces of someone elses software without their blessing - I don't care if it is sold on a physical medium or online.

How does buying something instead of downloading it for free make you bad at sharing? Are you saying that it's everyone's personal duty to redistribute software? Because if so that sounds pretty asinine. Stop blaming the people who pay for stuff when you want to blame the people who sell it.
No, it's not your personal duty to redistribute. But if in a community of millions, tens of thousands of people are paying while it only takes one person to make it available for free, legally, to all others without much effort, then yes, I think that community is pretty bad at sharing.

If you think however that just because you download something from Google Play, it is guaranteed not to be ad-infested malware, then I do think you're stupid indeed ;) .
If it's a pay app (remember, that's what we're talking about) with any significant number of sales and reviews that aren't full of "don't buy this it's ad-infested malware!" then it's probably not ad-infested malware.
No, we weren't talking about pay apps, we were talking about gratis versions of GPL'ed software that is also available as pay app.
 
I'm less OK with distros selling their distro online.
So you're okay with distros making profit because it's a lot of work making a distro.. and that work all goes away when they sell it as a DVD instead of selling it online??

I mean you didn't even limit it to stocking the distros in stores (putting aside how silly that sounds now), where you could at least argue that you pay a material cost to get stock together and are stuck with packaging, so there's a risk you could lose money. But if you're just offering to send someone a DVD in the mail you're charging them in addition to the cost of the DVD and the shipping then the extra work of you burning a DVD and putting it in a stamped envelope seems small compared to the work you actually cited of making the distro...

Sorry, really not seeing why you're making this distinction.

I'm not OK with someone selling individual pieces of someone elses software without their blessing - I don't care if it is sold on a physical medium or online.
Most GPLed software that's sold wasn't coded by one person and it quickly becomes infeasible to ask everyone for permission there too.. so the same argument you used to justify selling distros should apply in those cases, that's probably the case with Wesnoth too...

No, it's not your personal duty to redistribute. But if in a community of millions, tens of thousands of people are paying while it only takes one person to make it available for free, legally, to all others without much effort, then yes, I think that community is pretty bad at sharing.
There isn't a community, there's a bunch of people with phones. They're not any part of something you aren't. If you don't like it start pushing apps yourself, they don't have any more responsibility towards it than you do. You're directing your criticism towards the individuals who pay for GPLed software, buying something doesn't make you bad at sharing and it's not fair to lump all of the buyers into this group of people you think should be distributing it amongst themselves.

In reality there's no problem with others "sharing" what they get from Google Play, anything that gets on the store will be put up on a cracked APK site very quickly, GPLed or not. There's a variety of reasons why people may choose to buy the thing off of Google Play and not download it from a site like this. Some of them are pragmatic, and they very much would apply to GPLed software that's a direct copies of what's on the store.

No, we weren't talking about pay apps, we were talking about gratis versions of GPL'ed software that is also available as pay app.
Okay you must have clearly gotten lost here somewhere. No, I'm comparing buying a GPLed app off the app store vs downloading it for free off of a random website that someone put it on. Being a paid app on the app store means that you have to actually buy it in order to leave a review, meaning it's very impractical to stuff them with fake reviews and obviously you can't remove reviews. Please understand, I never said that downloading anything from Google Play is guaranteed to not be ad-infested, we're talking about what's relevant to the conversation here - if it's a pay app you have a pretty reliable means to filter if it's legitimate or not. If they're outright malware Google will also respond to complaints and take it down.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
a thread dye once nobody post in there anymore. If you find the thread redondant, why contributing ? ;)
I find the original topic redundant. I'm not contributing to the original topic, I'm helping drive the thread well off topic :p I'm not advocating that this thread needs to die, I said that redundant threads tend to either go off topic or die.

I don't and never have been very big on staying on topic just for the sake of staying on topic, I think that forums are for discussion not organizing data (except for a few cases where that makes sense like certain pinned threads).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[wall of text]

Let me try again to summarize or reformulate my positions. I don't think we really have any disagreement here - I think our views on this are probably rather similar.

Legally it is allowed to redistribute GPL'ed software for any fee, regardless of whether you're the author, have the authors' permission, or are completely unrelated to the project.

In my opinion, it is however not always morally right to sell other people's software for profit. Maybe I disagree with the FSF on that point.

Whether or not it is morally right depends on whether or not you are "taking advantage" of other people's work. I guess it is hard to define exactly what that means, since obviously the authors of GPL'ed software don't mind their software being redistributed, so that is not the issue. They probably don't want to profit from selling it themselves either, because then the GPL is not a good choice of license in my opinion (unless you're selling more than just the software itself, like support etc).

I have the feeling that selling, say, Debian GNU/Linux DVDs for a profit, assuming the profit goes to the maintainers of the distro or to GNU or something like that, is not morally wrong.

I have mixed feelings towards something like requiring a payment before you can download Debian from their website - I somehow feel that the download should be available free of charge, even though admittedly there are nonzero costs to hosting so there is no principled reason to treat it differently from DVDs. So if that would happen, I would probably not loudly protest against it, but I would at least raise an eyebrow and maybe switch to a different distro and encourage others to do the same.

I have the feeling that if someone takes a single program, say, a GPL'ed emulator written by Exophase, and sells it on some appstore, without Exophase's consent, for his own profit, then that is morally wrong.

There are grey areas between these extremes, and I cannot define a clear line separating "right" from "wrong" here. But at least the nice thing about the GPL is that anyone, not just the original author, can make the program available free of charge as well. That should limit the amount of "taking advantage of" that can actually happen in practice...

... at least in theory. Sadly, there seem to be plenty of people willing to pay anyway, and thanks to the "walled garden" approach of the iOS appstore and Google Play, it becomes easier for exploiters to profit from other people's work and harder for friendly people to share in an effective way (since that means you have to pay for a dev account and maybe even then Google or Apple can still reject your upload, even if it is perfectly legal).

Who is to blame for that situation? In my opinion, mostly Google and Apple for creating the walled gardens that enable such nasty behavior (and profit from it too). Also of course the people who sell other people's software. But also, to a (much) lesser extent, the people who choose to be walled-in (mostly they don't really get to choose though, especially if they're not tech-savvy) and who choose (probably not knowingly, but still) to pay some scammer for software written by someone else, and who then choose to not share what they just bought (maybe because they don't know how and/or that it is legal to do so). That's what I meant when I said "stupid" and "spectacularly bad at sharing". But I agree that I shouldn't have focused that much on "blaming the victims" - the creators of the walled gardens and the ones who profit from selling other people's software are obviously much more to blame.
 
[another wall of text]
Well yes, we probably both feel fairly similarly about this, in that I think that original developers "should" be paid and not be taken advantage of. I don't really like making comments about morality regarding things like this, but I'd at least subjectively prefer that they got some or all of the money. And in the case where someone was selling the GPLed emulator I wrote (gpSP) I did ask for some of the money made after that point which the person (yongzh) actually agreed to. In this case, it is possible if he said no that I would have tried working with someone else to do a gratis alternative.

If you think about it, you wouldn't just expect people to post GPLed binaries on other sites without pay, you'd just as soon if not sooner to expect someone to take the same source with very slight modifications and sell the same app for a moderately lower price and eat the person's lunch. This does happen somewhat but not as much as you might expect. Maybe the nature of the stores make it hard for these to sell.

Putting iOS and Apple aside, I really don't think see what Google is doing wrong with their store, outside of their total lack of support when bogus DMCA requests are thrown around. Android is not a walled garden. You're free to sideload apps however you want. You're free to use other stores/repositories. Many phones come with OEM-specific ones. You can use F-Droid which is an open source APK repository. I don't see how Google Play is any worse than the repositories + stores you get with something like Ubuntu. I don't think you're choosing to be walled-in because you use this.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Good that we have discovered after several walls of text that we actually have a similar position :) .

Just a small reaction to your last paragraph:

Yes, I agree that Google is less evil than Apple, but I'd still consider their store as a walled garden (with lower walls than those of the Apple appstore). You have to pay to be able to upload things. You have to register with Google to be able to download things and sign terms of service. Google can decide to remove something from their store at any time. Google can decide to remotely remove software you installed on your device at any time. Google keeps track of what software you install, and who knows how much other information on you.

Sure, there are alternatives, and you usually don't need to do illegal or warranty voiding things to be able to use them. But Google Play itself is still a walled garden, just one that is less problematic than that of Apple because it is easier to get out of it.
 
I don't think the nature of the app store itself really has anything to do with whether or not it's a closed garden. I don't think it qualifies given the description here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_platform

I have plenty of my own criticism with Google Play, but I don't have a problem with a lot of your particular complaints..

1) You have to pay to be able to upload things: given that your app doesn't have to even attempt to make Google revenue in any way and it's a pretty substantial service (well beyond what say, Pandora's repo offers) I don't think this is unreasonable. It's also a deterrent against people constantly ban evading.

2) You have to register and agree to a TOS: same with Pandora's repo and same with pretty much anywhere. Same to post on most forums for that matter. The reasons for it should be pretty obvious.

3) Google can remove things at any time: so can any repo (including Pandora's), I strongly doubt anyone would make a repo where there's an ironglad guarantee that whatever you put there will stay there. I fully expect malicious or illegal things to be removed, and while I loathe the DMCA takedown process I don't expect repos to fight it upfront.

4) Google can remote things remotely: I don't see this as a problem until they abuse it. So far I'm not aware of them using it to remove anything that isn't blatant malware, which is an obvious service to end users. They don't use it to remove things that have been banned. I suppose it'd be better if they gave the user a choice on whether or not they want it removed.

5) Google keeps track of what software you install: so what? So long as their data mining is kept internal to Play I don't see the problem... I know a lot of people have an issue with this but I'd like to hear more on this. I don't see it as an invasion of privacy if someone privately uses information you willingly submitted to them, either to report back information to you or enter it as anonymous statistics to track larger scale trends.

The big issues I have with Play are:

1) They do nothing or to little to review apps on process, even stuff in the description raising obvious red flags, so for instance blatant repackages of commercial ROMs or BIOSes get through until they're reported and eventually removed

2) Their 15 minute automatic cancel window is a joke. They reduced this from 24 hours under pressure from app developers (probably ones with a game you can beat in the first hour or two after getting it) but the alternative, manually offering refunds, doesn't do anything to either remove the app or the user's ability to download and update it. They should make different refund windows as options to the app seller.

3) Their communication regarding DMCA requests is terrible, and their followup is even worse - they should only be required to keep something down for two weeks if the issuing party doesn't take the offending party to court. Instead you're lucky if they ever put the thing back up, and they offer no mediation/consultation at all. They should do at least something to try to resolve these issues and they should ban people who abuse DMCA takedowns with bogus claims.

4) Their support availability is zero, they have basically some FAQs and that's it. They offer users and developers both no way to contact them at all and it's a major pain when users have problems over what's a Google Play issue and nag the app developers over it.
 
I always thought you had to make a substantial contribution to a project to redistribute it for money. Anything that would warrant a fork basically.

What the FSF says about free software on the pages does not translate to GPL only, nor does it have any bearing on whats actually in the GPL license, which is a legal matter.

The issue relating to tracking on google play seems to me that you cant opt out of the package survey, nor are you told in any meaningful manner that you opt in by default.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't think the nature of the app store itself really has anything to do with whether or not it's a closed garden. I don't think it qualifies given the description here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_platform


That definition says:

"a software system where the carrier or service provider has control over applications, content, and media and restricts convenient access to non-approved applications or content."

I don't know if that definition is any good, but for the sake of discussion let's say it is. I think it is reasonable to argue that Google Play fits that description. Google controls what gets accepted and what doesn't, they determine the criteria for approval, and they arguably restrict convenient access to non-approved applications, depending on your definition of "restrict" and "convenient". There certainly is no toggle button "show non-approved apps" in Google Play - in fact they don't host the non-approved apps at all - so according to me, that's pretty unconvenient.

I have plenty of my own criticism with Google Play, but I don't have a problem with a lot of your particular complaints..


1) You have to pay to be able to upload things: given that your app doesn't have to even attempt to make Google revenue in any way and it's a pretty substantial service (well beyond what say, Pandora's repo offers) I don't think this is unreasonable. It's also a deterrent against people constantly ban evading.


2) You have to register and agree to a TOS: same with Pandora's repo and same with pretty much anywhere. Same to post on most forums for that matter. The reasons for it should be pretty obvious.


3) Google can remove things at any time: so can any repo (including Pandora's), I strongly doubt anyone would make a repo where there's an ironglad guarantee that whatever you put there will stay there. I fully expect malicious or illegal things to be removed, and while I loathe the DMCA takedown process I don't expect repos to fight it upfront.


4) Google can remote things remotely: I don't see this as a problem until they abuse it. So far I'm not aware of them using it to remove anything that isn't blatant malware, which is an obvious service to end users. They don't use it to remove things that have been banned. I suppose it'd be better if they gave the user a choice on whether or not they want it removed.


5) Google keeps track of what software you install: so what? So long as their data mining is kept internal to Play I don't see the problem... I know a lot of people have an issue with this but I'd like to hear more on this. I don't see it as an invasion of privacy if someone privately uses information you willingly submitted to them, either to report back information to you or enter it as anonymous statistics to track larger scale trends.

1) I understand the reasons for making people pay for uploading stuff, but it's still a hurdle for people. The result of making devs pay for an account, is that you mostly attract devs who want to make more money from it than the cost of the dev account - so you get lots of adware and payware and not so much freeware and Free software.

2) I was talking about downloading. You can download anonymously from the Pandora repo and pretty much any FOSS repo. You cannot download anonymously from Google Play.

3,4) Well as long as they only use that power for good purposes, of course there is no problem. But company policies can change. Laws can change. What if Nintendo lobbies for new laws that make emulators more illegal in some countries, and then pressures Google to remove all Nintendo emulators (including DraStic) from Google Play, and to remove all installed copies remotely? I'm not saying that that is something you should worry about or has any likelihood to happen, but it's still scary to me.

5) What if, say, some government asks/forces Google to give them information about what accounts have installed a certain combination of apps that can be associated to a certain group of political dissidents, in order to help identify those people and maybe get rid of them? Maybe Google doesn't use information for evil purposes now, but who says they won't in the future, and who says they even have a choice? With or without authorization, others could be mining that data too, for far more sinister purposes than just some recommendations or targeted marketing.
 
What if RMS is actually an alien who crashed here and needs software for his obscure communication system and over the last several decades has been guiding software development towards Free, Open, and cross platform utilities in the hopes that something he can use will come out of it which he can recompile so he can send a distress signal bringing the alien fleet to conquer our planet?

So long as we're inventing scenarios we may as well play both sides of the field. :p
 
What if RMS is actually an alien who crashed here and needs software for his obscure communication system and over the last several decades has been guiding software development towards Free, Open, and cross platform utilities in the hopes that something he can use will come out of it which he can recompile so he can send a distress signal bringing the alien fleet to conquer our planet?


So long as we're inventing scenarios we may as well play both sides of the field. :p
You got me! I'll never write another line of GPL'ed code! The aliens can go to hell!
 
You got me! I'll never write another line of GPL'ed code! The aliens can go to hell
But what if I'm actually from a Utopian future wherein you wrote a piece of code which solved all the worlds problems and my organization wants to ensure that you don't GPL it thus ensuring that only we control it?
 
_wb_ disappears in a fluffy purple cloud of logical contradiction and infinite mental loops.

WizardStan has reached level 42! Congratulations! You gain 137 hitpoints and 24 magic points.
 
That definition says:

"a software system where the carrier or service provider has control over applications, content, and media and restricts convenient access to non-approved applications or content."

I don't know if that definition is any good, but for the sake of discussion let's say it is. I think it is reasonable to argue that Google Play fits that description. Google controls what gets accepted and what doesn't, they determine the criteria for approval, and they arguably restrict convenient access to non-approved applications, depending on your definition of "restrict" and "convenient". There certainly is no toggle button "show non-approved apps" in Google Play - in fact they don't host the non-approved apps at all - so according to me, that's pretty unconvenient.
Alright, if you're going to apply that to a repository then yes, Google Play is a closed platform. And so is every other repository I'm aware of. I've never seen any that offer a total free-for-all with no approval or removal of software. I really don't think that comment is supposed to be applied to repositories, I think software system has to refer to the OS that comes installed on the device.

On that note, is Google Play more restrictive than others? In some way, yes. In other ways, it's also less restrictive than most (and some of it to their detriment). There's a lot of stipulations on what they can do, but not a lot goes on with what they actually do which is the more pertinent issue to me.

1) I understand the reasons for making people pay for uploading stuff, but it's still a hurdle for people. The result of making devs pay for an account, is that you mostly attract devs who want to make more money from it than the cost of the dev account - so you get lots of adware and payware and not so much freeware and Free software.
 I don't think you should qualify adware as being non-gratis. Being made to watch ads does not fall under the same category as being made to pay money. Gratis or not has nothing to do with any income the developer makes (like if the software was written under some kind of private or public grant or received donations, kickstarter funded, etc). But you're right to differentiate between apps that have ads and apps that don't.

Now are people really encouraged to monetize their apps somehow just so they can payback the meager $25 fee? I really doubt it. If that's all they cared about they'd start making a zero-profit version once they got their $25 back. Or at least after their first profitable game.

The stores themselves may encourage people to make profit off of their work when they wouldn't have bothered if releasing elsewhere because it makes it very easy to make money, in a variety of ways. On the other hand, the ability to make money will also encourage people to make more and better software.

2) I was talking about downloading. You can download anonymously from the Pandora repo and pretty much any FOSS repo. You cannot download anonymously from Google Play.
Okay, that's fair. That goes hand in hand with the other stuff then...

3,4) Well as long as they only use that power for good purposes, of course there is no problem. But company policies can change. Laws can change. What if Nintendo lobbies for new laws that make emulators more illegal in some countries, and then pressures Google to remove all Nintendo emulators (including DraStic) from Google Play, and to remove all installed copies remotely? I'm not saying that that is something you should worry about or has any likelihood to happen, but it's still scary to me.
Google has removed plenty of content from their store under pressure from third parties but they've never remotely removed anything except malware. I don't see why they'd start now. The thing with Google's market model is they're not really in bed with any particular big company like Nintendo so that they will buckle under pressure to do something far reaching like remote removal of apps when the former has no legal standing to demand it (which would be the case for demanding a remote kill, even if the apps were deemed illegal).

Getting the app taken down due to a DMCA request that never goes anywhere would be a bigger problem. And something I knew could eventually happen when I put it there. Apps that are removed have this tendency to show up in other places...

5) What if, say, some government asks/forces Google to give them information about what accounts have installed a certain combination of apps that can be associated to a certain group of political dissidents, in order to help identify those people and maybe get rid of them? Maybe Google doesn't use information for evil purposes now, but who says they won't in the future, and who says they even have a choice? With or without authorization, others could be mining that data too, for far more sinister purposes than just some recommendations or targeted marketing.
Google could refuse. If you're talking about the government using force then you'd may as well speculate on these governments forcing other app stores to collect data. I really don't think it's fair to criticize Google for what they could do with this data.
 
That google doesnt refuse and instead willfully gives US agencies cart blanche while officially playing the restricting game on law officers in the same country makes it a fair point to make.
 
Back
Top