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

[Klumpen]

This thread was split from another thread. The post below was a reply to this post.  - _wb_

Even though Android has tons of software, users and devs available, I'm still missing stuff like LibreOffice, FreeCiv and Battle for Wesnoth.

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.androthsoft.battle

https://www.civsync.com

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/03/libreoffice-for-android-frustratingly-close-to-release/

I still don't like smartphones and using them for gaming and net activity.

 

[_wb_]

WTF, Battle for Wesnoth for 2.99 EUR on Google Play? It's a GPL'ed game!

 

[Klumpen]

WTF, Battle for Wesnoth for 2.99 EUR on Google Play? It's a GPL'ed game!

Since 1. September 2012, yes.

 

[Exophase]

WTF, Battle for Wesnoth for 2.99 EUR on Google Play? It's a GPL'ed game!

I thought one of the four freedoms was about being able to sell GPLed stuff? In Wesnoth's case part of the app money from both the iOS and Android store sales is used to help fund development: http://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/kgm8o/battle_for_wesnoth_is_now_available_for_android/c2k44o9

Or are you just reacting to the fact that no one has decided to put it up another one that's free?

 

[_wb_]

WTF, Battle for Wesnoth for 2.99 EUR on Google Play? It's a GPL'ed game!

I thought one of the four freedoms was about being able to sell GPLed stuff? In Wesnoth's case part of the app money from both the iOS and Android store sales is used to help fund development: http://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/kgm8o/battle_for_wesnoth_is_now_available_for_android/c2k44o9


Or are you just reacting to the fact that no one has decided to put it up another one that's free?

I have no problem with people selling other people's GPL'ed software if the profit goes to the original authors or is used for a cause those authors approve of (otherwise, it's legally still OK, but I don't think it is morally OK). So I guess in this case it is OK -- that is, if that claim by the one who is selling it can be trusted. There's little information about the Android version on the Wesnoth homepage, and I cannot seem to find any evidence that the Wesnoth project is indeed taking donations to pay artists (I was always assuming the graphics and music were done by volunteers), but of course it could be true. Also, "A significant portion of the proceeds goes to the Battle for Wesnoth project." can mean anything from 10% to 100% depending on your definition of "a significant portion". Maybe Ivanovic can tell us more about this?

I'm a bit surprised that nobody has put up a free version, and maybe even a more up to date one than the paying one. I mean, the Android community is supposed to be huge, but apparently there are not that many people who are able and willing to compile and package software for Android, unless they can make a quick buck out of it. See also: http://forums.wesnoth.org/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=37883

 

[EvilDragon]

I know of Wesnoth, but AFAIK the Android port is out of development for a long time already and has quite a few bugs as well.

LibreOffice was "close to release" since March and not much has changed there....

Okay, didn't know about FreeCiv yet

 

[Exophase]

I have no problem with people selling other people's GPL'ed software if the profit goes to the original authors or is used for a cause those authors approve of (otherwise, it's legally still OK, but I don't think it is morally OK).

Many agree (I personally don't like it either), but that certainly doesn't seem to be viewpoint the FSF takes (that it's just fine to sell GPLed code even if you didn't write all but a small part of it, or none of it). I'm sure you already know that, I'm just surprised you hold a differing viewpoint.

As for that post about the Android port, all I know is that the guy who did it was in fact a core developer and there were several threads about it on the official forums around when it was released, I think you can at the very least say that it was implicitly officially supported. Same thing with the iOS for-pay port where the lead developer supported it:

http://lwn.net/Articles/396535/

I wouldn't take the much later claim that the port was just done by some unrelated guy at face value.

 

[_wb_]

I have no problem with people selling other people's GPL'ed software if the profit goes to the original authors or is used for a cause those authors approve of (otherwise, it's legally still OK, but I don't think it is morally OK).

Many agree (I personally don't like it either), but that certainly doesn't seem to be viewpoint the FSF takes (that it's just fine to sell GPLed code even if you didn't write all but a small part of it, or none of it). I'm sure you already know that, I'm just surprised you hold a differing viewpoint.

Well I'm not the FSF .

Of course, if people are actually willing to pay for GPL'ed software, even if the money does not go to the original author(s) and they could just as well get a legal gratis copy of it, then I guess that's their loss. I never thought people would be prepared to waste their money like that on a significantly large scale, but I guess the iOS and Android ecosystems excel at attracting sufficiently stupid users who are always ready to throw away their money in $1.99 increments -- after all, taking a percentage off of that shitstream of microtransactions has become the new business model of Apple and Google.

 

[EvilDragon]

The difference is: People can't get it for free on Android or iOS. It's more than a simple recompile, you need a lot of work to make it work properly, so it's more than just a port.

 

[Klumpen]

The maintainer should at least update it properly, if he wants to have 3€ for a community project (Wesnoth is a community project, right?).

 

[Exophase]

Well I'm not the FSF .

No, but when you borrow their terminology and advocate for their sponsorship you are, without further clarification, sending the message that you're in line with their relevant philosophies wholesale. In other words, when you talk about Freedom with a capital F I'm going to think that means FSF's definition, which includes the freedom to charge whatever you want for software regardless of how much of it you wrote.

Of course, if people are actually willing to pay for GPL'ed software, even if the money does not go to the original author(s) and they could just as well get a legal gratis copy of it, then I guess that's their loss. I never thought people would be prepared to waste their money like that on a significantly large scale, but I guess the iOS and Android ecosystems excel at attracting sufficiently stupid users who are always ready to throw away their money in $1.99 increments -- after all, taking a percentage off of that shitstream of microtransactions has become the new business model of Apple and Google.

That's a pretty condescending attitude you've got there. Paying for software instead of grabbing the source and compiling it yourself doesn't make you stupid. Even if you're aware that it's GPL, compiling it and making the binaries available is still a service that many people aren't capable of (and no, not knowing how to compile something for Android doesn't make you stupid, it makes you ignorant of a pretty specialized skill same as most people are with most skills). This isn't just doing it once but potentially many times, where it then shows up as an automatic update. You may also get some level of support meaning you're more likely to get someone to help you figure out what's wrong when it doesn't work on your device - given the mess of hardware/software configurations on Android (that far outstrip what you'll see on say, Windows) this is an inevitability.

And porting to Android is still a decent amount of work in all but the most trivial cases and some people will want to voluntarily support this.

Bottom line is, even if I knew I could get the GPL source and build it myself I'd probably still fork over the few bucks because it's just not worth the hassle.

Maybe you're really blaming all the people who could be porting it and maintaining/supporting it on Android for free but aren't, but if that's really your stance you're probably going to have to add yourself to that group..

 

[_wb_]

Well I'm not the FSF .

No, but when you borrow their terminology and advocate for their sponsorship you are, without further clarification, sending the message that you're in line with their relevant philosophies wholesale. In other words, when you talk about Freedom with a capital F I'm going to think that means FSF's definition, which includes the freedom to charge whatever you want for software regardless of how much of it you wrote.

Fair enough, and I think I'm indeed mostly in line with the FSF's core positions. I don't think selling other's people software is a core part of their ideology though - do you have any reason to believe they are in favor of and actively encouraging such behavior?

Of course, if people are actually willing to pay for GPL'ed software, even if the money does not go to the original author(s) and they could just as well get a legal gratis copy of it, then I guess that's their loss. I never thought people would be prepared to waste their money like that on a significantly large scale, but I guess the iOS and Android ecosystems excel at attracting sufficiently stupid users who are always ready to throw away their money in $1.99 increments -- after all, taking a percentage off of that shitstream of microtransactions has become the new business model of Apple and Google.

That's a pretty condescending attitude you've got there. Paying for software instead of grabbing the source and compiling it yourself doesn't make you stupid. Even if you're aware that it's GPL, compiling it and making the binaries available is still a service that many people aren't capable of (and no, not knowing how to compile something for Android doesn't make you stupid, it makes you ignorant of a pretty specialized skill same as most people are with most skills). This isn't just doing it once but potentially many times, where it then shows up as an automatic update. You may also get some level of support meaning you're more likely to get someone to help you figure out what's wrong when it doesn't work on your device - given the mess of hardware/software configurations on Android (that far outstrip what you'll see on say, Windows) this is an inevitability.


And porting to Android is still a decent amount of work in all but the most trivial cases and some people will want to voluntarily support this.


Bottom line is, even if I knew I could get the GPL source and build it myself I'd probably still fork over the few bucks because it's just not worth the hassle.


Maybe you're really blaming all the people who could be porting it and maintaining/supporting it on Android for free but aren't, but if that's really your stance you're probably going to have to add yourself to that group..

I wasn't talking about porting, tweaking, compiling and packaging. I was talking about simply copying the packaged file or making the exact same file available for free. That would be legal if it only contains GPL'ed software.

 

[bzar]

FSF makes taking money for software more a "distribution fee" thing than actually paying for the right to use it. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html

 

[Exophase]

Fair enough, and I think I'm indeed mostly in line with the FSF's core positions. I don't think selling other's people software is a core part of their ideology though - do you have any reason to believe they are in favor of and actively encouraging such behavior?

Going by their article on article on the matter (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html) these quotes stand out to me:

Actually, we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can.

An encouragement for redistribution, with no limit on profit made.

Selling a copy of a free program is legitimate, and we encourage it.

Here the implication is a bit weaker but I still think "a copy" suggests that the proceeds aren't redistributed to the authors.

And my very favorite:

So if you are redistributing copies of free software, you might as well charge a substantial fee and make some money. Redistributing free software is a good and legitimate activity; if you do it, you might as well make a profit from it.

Basically, GPL software is furthering such a noble cause that you deserve money just for getting more people to use it.

Of course, the whole article is pretty anachronistic, particularly the part where they say proprietary software is usually sold for a high price. But I find a lot of their mentality and arguments anachronistic in general so that's kind of par for the course..

I wasn't talking about porting, tweaking, compiling and packaging. I was talking about simply copying the packaged file or making the exact same file available for free. That would be legal if it only contains GPL'ed software.

I don't think Google Play allows straight duplicates. And while that would eliminate the need to recompile anything or do any porting work (assuming that they made the source available - note that they don't have to make it publicly available, so you may at least need to buy the thing first in either scenario) you'd still need to maintain it and support it as much as they are to be offering the same thing. Also you have to pay the $25 Google Play account fee.

I still don't see what any of that has to do with users being stupid for buying the thing, they can't copy it without having it.

FSF makes taking money for software more a "distribution fee" thing than actually paying for the right to use it. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html

I don't see how you come to that exact interpretation. Very clearly they say you should charge as high a price as you like, so at the very least they don't think you should merely charge a cost to cover distribution expenses (as if that were much of a thing anymore).

FSF more or less believes in freedom to keep software private:

Free software is a matter of freedom, not access. In general we do not believe it is wrong to develop a program and not release it. There are occasions when a program is so important that one might argue that withholding it from the public is doing wrong to humanity. However, such cases are rare. Most programs are not that important, and declining to release them is not particularly wrong. Thus, there is no conflict between the development of private or custom software and the principles of the free software movement.

(http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html)

To me this suggests that you can restrict whom you send it to, including only sending it to people who have paid for it. Those people do have the right to distribute it further as they please, however.

 

[_wb_]

That article on the FSF site is a bit dated - I'm assuming it was written mostly to help clarify the distinction between libre and gratis, as well as to justify distros selling GNU/Linux CD-ROMs for a profit. I think they went a bit over the top in that article.

I wasn't talking about porting, tweaking, compiling and packaging. I was talking about simply copying the packaged file or making the exact same file available for free. That would be legal if it only contains GPL'ed software.

I don't think Google Play allows straight duplicates. And while that would eliminate the need to recompile anything or do any porting work (assuming that they made the source available - note that they don't have to make it publicly available, so you may at least need to buy the thing first in either scenario) you'd still need to maintain it and support it as much as they are to be offering the same thing. Also you have to pay the $25 Google Play account fee.

I still don't see what any of that has to do with users being stupid for buying the thing, they can't copy it without having it.
 

It suffices that one user buys it and puts it on some website (if Google Play does indeed not allow duplicates).

 

[Exophase]

That article on the FSF site is a bit dated - I'm assuming it was written mostly to help clarify the distinction between libre and gratis, as well as to justify distros selling GNU/Linux CD-ROMs for a profit. I think they went a bit over the top in that article.

Okay, this is probably going to sound pretty harsh so please forgive me. Your words sound a lot like a religious apologetic defending his holy book. The thing is not being the least bit ambiguous about a very hard ideological position but you're saying it really deserves a more limited reading in-context. When the whole essence of the religion (in this case the FSF's message as well) is very much about taking hard ideological stances.

It suffices that one user buys it and puts it on some website (if Google Play does indeed not allow duplicates).

So people are stupid because they look for an app on Google Play and spend a few bucks on it instead of first researching it to determine its license (assuming they have any clue what "GPL" means to begin with) then finding "some website" to download it from where they won't get automatic updates and have no clue if the thing isn't malware, ad-infested, or just plain broken?

Yeah man anyone who spends a small amount of money to avoid that kind of thing or because they actually don't have a problem with the person getting money as an idiot.

 

[Klumpen]

Why is this FSF-discussion spreading everywhere?

 

[SNESFAN]

I think I made a point about the evangelic nature of the Linux (more specifically free software people) supporters. It doesn't bother me as long as what they're saying isn't nonsense. What _wb_ says isn't nonsense so no offense is taken even if that's where he hangs his hat.

That stuff spreads like any type of religious talk. Trying to convert,enlist and defend etc.

 

[_wb_]

That article on the FSF site is a bit dated - I'm assuming it was written mostly to help clarify the distinction between libre and gratis, as well as to justify distros selling GNU/Linux CD-ROMs for a profit. I think they went a bit over the top in that article.

Okay, this is probably going to sound pretty harsh so please forgive me. Your words sound a lot like a religious apologetic defending his holy book. The thing is not being the least bit ambiguous about a very hard ideological position but you're saying it really deserves a more limited reading in-context. When the whole essence of the religion (in this case the FSF's message as well) is very much about taking hard ideological stances.

The difference is that in this case I'm defending a different position than the one that is written in my supposed "holy book".

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.

It suffices that one user buys it and puts it on some website (if Google Play does indeed not allow duplicates).

So people are stupid because they look for an app on Google Play and spend a few bucks on it instead of first researching it to determine its license (assuming they have any clue what "GPL" means to begin with) then finding "some website" to download it from where they won't get automatic updates and have no clue if the thing isn't malware, ad-infested, or just plain broken?


Yeah man anyone who spends a small amount of money to avoid that kind of thing or because they actually don't have a problem with the person getting money as an idiot.

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.

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 .

 

[_jr_]

Why is this FSF-discussion spreading everywhere?

Because it is about opinions


IMO making free software accessible is a valuable service (as exophase nicely laid out), therefore the right to use commercially is an important part of free software. Note that in the case of the GPL this includes making the recipient aware of her rights regarding the software (whether she cares or not). I'm with _wb_ that not giving back (not neccessarily money or patches; support is already a great service) is morally questionable. But that is not that different from ED vs craigix.