7 ms·

> Disallowing developers from using in-app billing for donations, while also barring them from linking to external donation platforms, puts open source projects

by krn 7y ago

> Disallowing developers from using in-app billing for donations, while also barring them from linking to external donation platforms, puts open source projects in a difficult position, and appears to be overly hostile towards funding open source development. Google Play has been very clear about this[1]: > Fund solicitations > Examples: Donation solicitations from parties without a valid 501(c)(3) tax exempt status clearly displayed to the public; solicitations from parties without valid proof of exempt tax status or proof of registration with the relevant country's regulatory bodies and authorities; and political organizations that have registered with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) For instance, Wikipedia displays an external "Support Wikipedia" link in the main menu of its Android app[2] without violating Google Play's terms and conditions. [1] https://support.google.com/faqs/answer/75724?hl=en https://support.google.com/faqs/answer/75724?hl=en [2] https://i.imgur.com/MEut6yC.png https://i.imgur.com/MEut6yC.png

dessant 7y ago
It appears only non-profit organizations are allowed to use Google Play In-app Billing for donations, which is fine. But why are we forbidden from linking to an external page that lists other ways to support a project, such as Patreon? I think we should stop being apologetic, and begin to call out Google for the damage they are inflicting upon open source developers.
- krn 7y ago
  > If only non-profit organizations are allowed to use Google Play In-app Billing for donations Nobody is allowed to use Google Play's in-app billing for donations, and only organizations with a valid tax exempt status can link to an external page that lists donation options.
  - dessant 7y ago
    The page you linked to lists activities that are forbidden if you use Google payments. > Any individual or business processing transactions with Google payments must adhere to these policies.
  - yepguy 7y ago
    Maybe the Software Freedom Conservancy[1] or Software in the Public Interest[2] could help open source Android apps take donations. [1]: https://sfconservancy.org/ https://sfconservancy.org/ [2]: https://www.spi-inc.org/ https://www.spi-inc.org/
  - m-p-3 7y ago
    What do you do if you aren't based in the US? Are you able to gain a tax-exempt status or do that only applies to US orgs?
tolmasky 7y ago
Sure, but why? If the rules clearly said "no chess games", one could say "that ends the discussion of why chess games are denied", or you could further ask "but why are no chess games allowed?". Is it because Google plans on having their own Google-Chess someday and thus is preemptively preventing competition? Is there a technical or regulatory reason chess games aren't allowed? That's the question (at least for me) here: why are (non-tax-exempt) donations not allowed, beyond the tautological response of "because the rules say so"? I'm not familiar with the regulations around this area, so for all I know there's a great non-Google reason for this and Google just wants to avoid the hassle of conforming to some law. Or maybe donations is a feature they want to eventually support in Google Play and they don't want to have to force a bunch of apps in the future to switch once they add it (which would be a more disappointing reason). Perhaps they're afraid that it would create a loophole where people could get around the 30% cut since psychologically it feels shitty for someone to middle-man a donation, but then if they made donations Google-tax free, everyone would just choose "donation" and they'd have to police this.
- greggman2 7y ago
  My guess is it's ripe for fraud. Find open source app, put on Google with your donation platform of choice, profit! By requiring government registration my guess is the hope is both that the fraudsters will be caught or dissuaded and if they do make it past the government registration then when the real devs complain Google can say "take it up with the government. They mis-licensed. We just followed their license"
  - TazeTSchnitzel 7y ago
    And a non-donation in-app payment isn't open for fraud?
    - ceph_ 7y ago
      If it was a normal in-app payment it would go through Google. Where it could be tracked, identified as fraud, and stopped.
xyzzy_plugh 7y ago
It's pretty obtuse to only permit 501(c)(3)s. Likely this is Google avoiding additional regulatory complications/KYC. It's cumbersome to prove you're not enabling money laundering or funding terrorist organizations if you're an arbitrary money sink. But I'd expect better than Google, a business with an astounding $836B market cap. They could just buy a company that primarily handles this sort of money flow (e.g. Streamlabs)
- dessant 7y ago
  It's understandable that they want to process payments only for registered organizations, but that still does not explain why are open source apps being taken down for linking to an external page that lists ways to support projects.
  - xyzzy_plugh 7y ago
    Probably because Google or it's financial partners have compliance programs that require all money flows they enable go through the required regulatory channels. If an affiliated party is breaking regulations, you can often get in trouble by continuing to be associated with them once you're aware, and ignorance isn't a valid defense.
    - dessant 7y ago
      It's unlikely that GitHub subjects themselves to legal risk by allowing developers to link to Patreon [1]. I think this issue has more to do with Google's priorities, than what is legally possible. [1] https://help.github.com/en/articles/displaying-a-sponsor-button-in-your-repository https://help.github.com/en/articles/displaying-a-sponsor-but...
      - xyzzy_plugh 7y ago
        Patreon assumes the bulk of the legal risk, and GitHub probably is ok with Patreon. FWIW I agree with you, Google isn't prioritizing solving this properly and is opting to take the easy way out
the8472 7y ago
> Examples Since those are examples I hope this also covers tax-exempt charities in other jurisdictions. I switched to the german site and it still only refers to american laws.
- hnick 7y ago
  The full text says "relevant country's regulatory bodies and authorities". "Examples: Donation solicitations from parties without a valid 501(c)(3) tax exempt status clearly displayed to the public; solicitations from parties without valid proof of exempt tax status or proof of registration with the relevant country's regulatory bodies and authorities; and political organizations that have registered with the Federal Election Commission (FEC)."
iicc 7y ago
>Any individual or business processing transactions with Google payments must adhere to these policies. Are the developers using google payments for other things/apps? Because in the context of these specific apps they are not using Google payments, so the policy wouldn't appear to be applicable.
tgsovlerkhgsel 7y ago
What you quote seems to be the Google Payments policy, not the Google Play policy: "Any individual or business processing transactions with Google payments must adhere to these policies." These apps weren't using Google payments, and it is suspected that they were taken down for not using Google's payment systems (despite not being allowed to).
thayne 7y ago
> solicitations from parties without a valid 501(c)(3) tax exempt status clearly displayed to the public As far as I can tell (though I am no expert) it would be very difficult or impossible for an open source project to qualify for 501(c)(3) tax exemption. And even if it was, the cost in both time and money to obtain such a status would not be worth it for small open source projects.

by krn 7y ago

dessant 7y ago

It appears only non-profit organizations are allowed to use Google Play In-app Billing for donations, which is fine. But why are we forbidden from linking to an external page that lists other ways to support a project, such as Patreon? I think we should stop being apologetic, and begin to call out Google for the damage they are inflicting upon open source developers.

krn 7y ago
> If only non-profit organizations are allowed to use Google Play In-app Billing for donations Nobody is allowed to use Google Play's in-app billing for donations, and only organizations with a valid tax exempt status can link to an external page that lists donation options.
- dessant 7y ago
  The page you linked to lists activities that are forbidden if you use Google payments. > Any individual or business processing transactions with Google payments must adhere to these policies.
- yepguy 7y ago
  Maybe the Software Freedom Conservancy[1] or Software in the Public Interest[2] could help open source Android apps take donations. [1]: https://sfconservancy.org/ https://sfconservancy.org/ [2]: https://www.spi-inc.org/ https://www.spi-inc.org/
- m-p-3 7y ago
  What do you do if you aren't based in the US? Are you able to gain a tax-exempt status or do that only applies to US orgs?

tolmasky 7y ago

Sure, but why? If the rules clearly said "no chess games", one could say "that ends the discussion of why chess games are denied", or you could further ask "but why are no chess games allowed?". Is it because Google plans on having their own Google-Chess someday and thus is preemptively preventing competition? Is there a technical or regulatory reason chess games aren't allowed? That's the question (at least for me) here: why are (non-tax-exempt) donations not allowed, beyond the tautological response of "because the rules say so"? I'm not familiar with the regulations around this area, so for all I know there's a great non-Google reason for this and Google just wants to avoid the hassle of conforming to some law. Or maybe donations is a feature they want to eventually support in Google Play and they don't want to have to force a bunch of apps in the future to switch once they add it (which would be a more disappointing reason). Perhaps they're afraid that it would create a loophole where people could get around the 30% cut since psychologically it feels shitty for someone to middle-man a donation, but then if they made donations Google-tax free, everyone would just choose "donation" and they'd have to police this.

greggman2 7y ago
My guess is it's ripe for fraud. Find open source app, put on Google with your donation platform of choice, profit! By requiring government registration my guess is the hope is both that the fraudsters will be caught or dissuaded and if they do make it past the government registration then when the real devs complain Google can say "take it up with the government. They mis-licensed. We just followed their license"
- TazeTSchnitzel 7y ago
  And a non-donation in-app payment isn't open for fraud?
  - ceph_ 7y ago
    If it was a normal in-app payment it would go through Google. Where it could be tracked, identified as fraud, and stopped.

xyzzy_plugh 7y ago

It's pretty obtuse to only permit 501(c)(3)s. Likely this is Google avoiding additional regulatory complications/KYC. It's cumbersome to prove you're not enabling money laundering or funding terrorist organizations if you're an arbitrary money sink. But I'd expect better than Google, a business with an astounding $836B market cap. They could just buy a company that primarily handles this sort of money flow (e.g. Streamlabs)

dessant 7y ago
It's understandable that they want to process payments only for registered organizations, but that still does not explain why are open source apps being taken down for linking to an external page that lists ways to support projects.
- xyzzy_plugh 7y ago
  Probably because Google or it's financial partners have compliance programs that require all money flows they enable go through the required regulatory channels. If an affiliated party is breaking regulations, you can often get in trouble by continuing to be associated with them once you're aware, and ignorance isn't a valid defense.
  - dessant 7y ago
    It's unlikely that GitHub subjects themselves to legal risk by allowing developers to link to Patreon [1]. I think this issue has more to do with Google's priorities, than what is legally possible. [1] https://help.github.com/en/articles/displaying-a-sponsor-button-in-your-repository https://help.github.com/en/articles/displaying-a-sponsor-but...
    - xyzzy_plugh 7y ago
      Patreon assumes the bulk of the legal risk, and GitHub probably is ok with Patreon. FWIW I agree with you, Google isn't prioritizing solving this properly and is opting to take the easy way out

the8472 7y ago

> Examples Since those are examples I hope this also covers tax-exempt charities in other jurisdictions. I switched to the german site and it still only refers to american laws.

hnick 7y ago
The full text says "relevant country's regulatory bodies and authorities". "Examples: Donation solicitations from parties without a valid 501(c)(3) tax exempt status clearly displayed to the public; solicitations from parties without valid proof of exempt tax status or proof of registration with the relevant country's regulatory bodies and authorities; and political organizations that have registered with the Federal Election Commission (FEC)."

iicc 7y ago

>Any individual or business processing transactions with Google payments must adhere to these policies. Are the developers using google payments for other things/apps? Because in the context of these specific apps they are not using Google payments, so the policy wouldn't appear to be applicable.

tgsovlerkhgsel 7y ago

What you quote seems to be the Google Payments policy, not the Google Play policy: "Any individual or business processing transactions with Google payments must adhere to these policies." These apps weren't using Google payments, and it is suspected that they were taken down for not using Google's payment systems (despite not being allowed to).

thayne 7y ago

> solicitations from parties without a valid 501(c)(3) tax exempt status clearly displayed to the public As far as I can tell (though I am no expert) it would be very difficult or impossible for an open source project to qualify for 501(c)(3) tax exemption. And even if it was, the cost in both time and money to obtain such a status would not be worth it for small open source projects.