5 ms·

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 gue

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.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - martin_a 7y ago
    You misspelled "Where it benefits Google, no matter whether it's fraud or not".
    - TomMarius 7y ago
      I am okay with that. No one is forcing anyone to use the Google service.
      - z3t4 7y ago
        You are forced to use either Apple or Android or a Windows PC to acces many services that are essential to modern life. Android would probably be the cheapest option. So if you do not want to use Google services you would have to pay premium. For many people it is not an option.
        TomMarius 7y ago
        I am not and I am not using neither Apple, Android (I am using the FOSS version, I guess that does not count as Android in this case) nor Windows and I am not missing anything, and I'm not frugal in this sense (most of my friends consider me a guy living in the future). And I am not paying premiums. I simply prefer web apps over native apps, it's a breeze with PWAs.
        z3t4 7y ago
        All government services where I live require Windows/Android or Apple. For some time I used Android in a VM for tax declaration etc, but the developers first banned the OS build name, so I changed the build name :P But then they found some way to figure out that I was using a VM. My hope is in PWA's, but the problem with PWA's (it's a feature really) is that it's harder to fingerprint and spy on the user. Also meaning it's harder to catch abuse like identity theft. I know there are ongoing work on Web ID standards where you can have a cheap second factor device as key. So it looks promising. But then there are the platforms, what incentive do they have, (more then empowering their users and developers), to actually enable a layer like web browsers that circumvent their monopoly status?
X6S1x6Okd1st 7y ago
If they repackaged the app, gave it out for free, but changed the donation link how would that violate the license?
- gbear605 7y ago
  I suspect OP was referring to the non-profit status given by the government as “the license,” not the license of the source code.
y49 7y ago
My guess is you missed the point of Free Software. Anyone can use it in any way, including selling for profit. "Free" as in "freedom", you know Recently I created a small homepage with different re-packaged versions of Java: https://jdk.dev https://jdk.dev All that alternative packages are free of charge but they have extended support from a number of big companies. All these companies funded separately, there's no common place for donations or something. That's totally ok in the world of Free Software. Pick any source code you want, repackage, rebrand it, sell it as you wish and may the Force be with you. People do it all the time.
- jonas21 7y ago
  Just because the license lets you do what you want with the code doesn't mean you’re allowed to commit fraud. For example, if a person were to repackage someone else's open source project with a link that says, "Donate to support the development of this software" that's still fraud (assuming they keep the donations).
  - newdaynewuser 7y ago
    I understand your point but we should not assume criminal intent without some solid evidence. Back in days I paid for CDs with only open source software because internet was too slow. CDs were definitely priced for decent profit. The beauty of opensource is that we can do this legally.
    - afarrell 7y ago
      But this isn't a discussion of assuming criminal intent of a particular actor. This is a discussion of a rule to prevent actions by a hypothetical criminally-inclined actor...and thereby prevent a platform from getting a reputation for that criminal action.
- pragmatick 7y ago
  I like that page but really not a fan of the font. It looks... dirty? Like writing with ink on wet paper.

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.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- martin_a 7y ago
  You misspelled "Where it benefits Google, no matter whether it's fraud or not".
  - TomMarius 7y ago
    I am okay with that. No one is forcing anyone to use the Google service.
    - z3t4 7y ago
      You are forced to use either Apple or Android or a Windows PC to acces many services that are essential to modern life. Android would probably be the cheapest option. So if you do not want to use Google services you would have to pay premium. For many people it is not an option.
      - TomMarius 7y ago
        I am not and I am not using neither Apple, Android (I am using the FOSS version, I guess that does not count as Android in this case) nor Windows and I am not missing anything, and I'm not frugal in this sense (most of my friends consider me a guy living in the future). And I am not paying premiums. I simply prefer web apps over native apps, it's a breeze with PWAs.
        z3t4 7y ago
        All government services where I live require Windows/Android or Apple. For some time I used Android in a VM for tax declaration etc, but the developers first banned the OS build name, so I changed the build name :P But then they found some way to figure out that I was using a VM. My hope is in PWA's, but the problem with PWA's (it's a feature really) is that it's harder to fingerprint and spy on the user. Also meaning it's harder to catch abuse like identity theft. I know there are ongoing work on Web ID standards where you can have a cheap second factor device as key. So it looks promising. But then there are the platforms, what incentive do they have, (more then empowering their users and developers), to actually enable a layer like web browsers that circumvent their monopoly status?

X6S1x6Okd1st 7y ago

If they repackaged the app, gave it out for free, but changed the donation link how would that violate the license?

gbear605 7y ago
I suspect OP was referring to the non-profit status given by the government as “the license,” not the license of the source code.

y49 7y ago

My guess is you missed the point of Free Software. Anyone can use it in any way, including selling for profit. "Free" as in "freedom", you know Recently I created a small homepage with different re-packaged versions of Java: https://jdk.dev https://jdk.dev All that alternative packages are free of charge but they have extended support from a number of big companies. All these companies funded separately, there's no common place for donations or something. That's totally ok in the world of Free Software. Pick any source code you want, repackage, rebrand it, sell it as you wish and may the Force be with you. People do it all the time.

jonas21 7y ago
Just because the license lets you do what you want with the code doesn't mean you’re allowed to commit fraud. For example, if a person were to repackage someone else's open source project with a link that says, "Donate to support the development of this software" that's still fraud (assuming they keep the donations).
- newdaynewuser 7y ago
  I understand your point but we should not assume criminal intent without some solid evidence. Back in days I paid for CDs with only open source software because internet was too slow. CDs were definitely priced for decent profit. The beauty of opensource is that we can do this legally.
  - afarrell 7y ago
    But this isn't a discussion of assuming criminal intent of a particular actor. This is a discussion of a rule to prevent actions by a hypothetical criminally-inclined actor...and thereby prevent a platform from getting a reputation for that criminal action.
pragmatick 7y ago
I like that page but really not a fan of the font. It looks... dirty? Like writing with ink on wet paper.