3

I have found the following apps on the Google Play store. They are traditional Linux apps for drawing, that are running on Android (with some modification to the source code, I believe).

I would like to ask, if the original licences for these products was the GPL (GNU General Public Licence), how is it, that, these are sold for a fee (although the fee is minimal?

Have there been changes to the GPL version 3 that supersede version 2 allowing the executable from the free code, free for copying and redistribution, to be sold at a fee (perhaps, if I download the code for these apps from GitHub, compile it myself, with Android Studio, on a Windows 11 PC, and install it to USB using "adb install" to my Android phone, then I can install these apps without paying for them?

Essentially, am I just paying compilation and distribution?

Why the fee?

Thanks.

gimp and inkscape

MadHatter
  • 48,547
  • 4
  • 122
  • 166
Joselin Jocklingson
  • 149
  • 6
  • 2
    Note that there is a reason why those haven't been ported freely: porting is apparently difficult, and there are plenty of complaints that the paid ports don't actually work properly. – trlkly Sep 25 '23 at 16:26
  • 6
    The GPL has never prevented selling the executable for a fee. – OrangeDog Sep 25 '23 at 17:57
  • 1
    "am I just paying compilation and distribution" - the fact that it seems to be strange to OP that this is something worth paying for makes me feel very old. – xLeitix Sep 26 '23 at 14:08

1 Answers1

23

if the original licences for these products was the GPL (GNU General Public Licence), how is it, that, these are sold for a fee (although the fee is minimal)?

As we have said elsewhere more clearly, it's perfectly OK to sell GPL software: that is, to charge for the conveyance of the binary. What the vendor may not do is refuse also to transfer the complete corresponding source code to recipients of the binary, or to further charge for that. Essentially, one must convey freedom along with the product.

Whether the vendor in the above example(s) will give you all this on request will not be known until someone who's paid for the binary asks for it. I have my suspicions, but that's all they are.

Have there been changes to the GPL version 3 that supersede version 2 allowing the executable from the free code, free for copying and redistribution, to be sold at a fee

No, GPLv2 allowed this also.

Why the fee?

The Play store provides a mechanism whereby people can monetise software. Economically speaking, it's probably unavoidable that some people will ignore the "I can charge for software I wrote" model, in favour of the "I can charge for software somebody else wrote" model; the overheads are lower.

Essentially, am I just paying compilation and distribution?

Not even that. You can have single-click access to some five thousand (at time of writing) free software apps for Android via the F-Droid repository, and its corresponding software management app (or equivalents). Because it's specifically for free software, the issues of charging and privacy don't arise (no authentication is required, unlike Play Store), whereas the licence choice and app-related privacy issues are mentioned front-and-centre (at least in the official app). You can run an entire de-Googled Android phone off this repo; I have, for many years.

Somebody once said (I'm sorry I can't find a link offhand) that proprietary software requires you to pay, while free software requires you to learn. One could see this whole exercise as an excellent illustration of that principle.

MadHatter
  • 48,547
  • 4
  • 122
  • 166
  • 4
    Even if F-Droid exists, paying for either app through the Google Play Store is still paying for at least distribution, and possibly compilation. It’s also, importantly for some people, paying for convenience (F-Droid is great, but it’s not trivial to set up). – Austin Hemmelgarn Sep 26 '23 at 00:30
  • 1
    If I believed that users were, consciously and in the full knowledge of all their options, choosing to pay an avoidable charge in return for convenience, I'd be a lot happier. The OP's question, however, suggests that at least some users who get hit with the charge are not making a fully-informed choice when they click on "GIMP £1.79". – MadHatter Sep 26 '23 at 06:49
  • 1
    Ironic that the two paid products listed there preemptively provide the link for their GitHub repo in the About section, while the gratis XGimp doesn't (I know GPL allows that as long as they provide the source code to those who get the binary then ask for it). The About section for the paid apps also mentions a gratis alternative for those who don't want to pay, as far as providing informed choice I think that's as good as it get unless Play Store itself adds a confirmation screen like "This app is open source and you can compile it yourself or find other builds without paying". – Martheen Sep 26 '23 at 09:59
  • Still, the repos themselves don't provide a clear indication of what version it was forked from the mainline product, so it's probably not trivial for anyone else to merge patches from the mainline. – Martheen Sep 26 '23 at 10:01
  • @AustinHemmelgarn F-Droid was super easy to set up for me – Hobbamok Sep 26 '23 at 11:41
  • That's a great quote. Because free software is maintained by volunteers, who do not do this all day every day (some do, but not as many). They do not get paid to make things easier to use. Things being easy to use comes from frustrated users who happen to also know how to fix the problem and have the time and motivation to do so. – user253751 Sep 26 '23 at 14:55
  • @Hobbamok It’s not difficult, but it’s a bit beyond what the average user is comfortable with, and the ‘easy’ option has a few limitations that make it less than convenient for most users. – Austin Hemmelgarn Sep 26 '23 at 15:03
  • Not that I disagree with some of the points being made, and a very interesting discussion it is, but perhaps not appropriate for a comments field? – MadHatter Sep 26 '23 at 15:10
  • Thank you for your answers, but I would like to know whether the distributors of these apps are also the developer community of these apps, taken as a whole. Perhaps it would only be fair that payments were made to these developers rather than to a third party (given the ease to compile and distribute these from GitHub (there is to my knowledge only a subscription fee of 25$ to post to the Google Play store). – Joselin Jocklingson Oct 04 '23 at 12:55
  • I beg you not to ask fresh, substantive questions in a comments field! If you want to post a new question, then you should consider doing so. Note, however, that questions which are simply asking for information about offsite resources may get closed. You should also consider accepting an answer to this question if you think one has answered the question that you asked. – MadHatter Oct 04 '23 at 13:02