8 ms·

> We faced rejections in submitting the app, because they decided to change their policy on the app having a link in the "About WireGuard" tool window to www.wi

> We faced rejections in submitting the app, because they decided to change their policy on the app having a link in the "About WireGuard" tool window to www.wireguard.com/donations/ (which they previously had allowed explicitly; now they want 30% or something) Last year Google started to ban donation links in FOSS apps, WireGuard was one of the first victims [0], completely removed from the store. I didn't know that Apple also started doing the same and hit WireGuard again. Extending the definition of an "in-app payment" to a link to the project homepage in the "About" window that doesn't buy any good or service related to the app is an overzealous restriction. Especially so when that button is clicked by, perhaps, only 10% of the users. This is just evil. [0] Open-source apps removed from Google Play Store due to donation links https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21268389 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21268389

furyg3 6y ago
I couldn't agree more. You're not paying for the app, or the service, those are free and you are simply making a donation. I can imagine that Apple may want to define 'FOSS' to some extent (donations need to go to a non-profit with a board, software needs to be licensed under one of the following licenses, etc), but there should be some room for supporting FOSS that is included in an App Store.
- segfaultbuserr 6y ago
  Yeah, I can imagine that payment links can potentially be used as a loophole for selling unauthorized in-app payment items outside the store. But this is not the case here, nothing is sold, it's literally only a link to the project home page, https://wireguard.com/donations/ https://wireguard.com/donations/.
  - zaarn 6y ago
    Simple solution, there are human reviewers for this kinda reason and if the rule is "Open Source Apps get a donation button" then not any random can loophole around. Heck, if both Apple and Google offered a solution by which you provide the source code to build, any necessary secret variables for the build and then it gives you those extra privileges, it would be nice. But that costs money the open source apps don't have.
    - comeonseriously 6y ago
      Apple could win a hole lot of points here by processing the donations themselves. The upside for them is that it would close the loophole.
      - zaarn 6y ago
        Only if they don't take a fee, to effectively steal donation money for themselves.
- pyrale 6y ago
  > Apple may want to define 'FOSS' to some extent "The stuff we won't pay for, but will make other people pay for, even tho we did nothing for it"
  - jojobas 6y ago
    "... therefore we should take our cut."
  - hombre_fatal 6y ago
    Funnily enough that’s how everyone views FOSS including us HNers and developers.
- Spivak 6y ago
  I think Apple/Google see that as a distinction without a difference. You're providing thing, the app, and because of that app and via that app people are giving you money. And since you're not a registered charity they want their pound of flesh.
toyg 6y ago
> when that button is clicked by, perhaps, only 10% of the users 10%? I think FOSS developers would be extremely happy if even 1% clicked on that kind of button. I reckon the actual stat is closer to 0.01%... This is absolute scroogerism from our mobile overlords. We badly need a really-open alternative to the Google/Apple world of feudal taxes.
- segfaultbuserr 6y ago
  I meant 10% click the "About" button, how many of those actually donate is another question...
- enriquto 6y ago
  > We badly need a really-open alternative F-Droid is a thing
  - scaladev 6y ago
    For now. When they change that optional setting they introduced recently which blocks sideloading applications outside of the official store and make it non-optional, what are we going to do? Use special Chinese Android builds with Ali store (or whatever it's called)? Boiling the frog slowly and all.
    - rthomas6 6y ago
      Android is open source.
      - zaarn 6y ago
        Only by the letter of the law, the android that ends up on your phone consists of mostly closed source binaries from Google that you don't get without installing the play store as well.
        acct776 6y ago
        You mean the Google add-ons to Android. Regular Android works great in GrapheneOS/CalyxOS/other AOSP variants.
z3t4 6y ago
IANAL - but I'm pretty sure the app platforms are breaking many laws here, not allowing people to freely donate. Like free speech, able to ask for help, freedom to do business, abuse of monopoly. They might be able to get away with a transaction fee, and a store fee, but they should not be able to censor text, links, etc. This is the new Mafia. If you don't play by their rules (theirs, not the law) your business dies!
- evgen 6y ago
  Yes, you are obviously NAL. The rules are clear and are applied evenly; it is the even application of the rule that is causing the problem here. FOSS-advocates think they are special snowflakes who deserve an exception to the rule about asking for payment. The app stores (both Apple and Google) clearly disagree and think that this is something that will be easily gamed and abused. Nothing is preventing these apps from simply saying 'if you want to learn more or support our project go to <some top-level URL>' instead of directly linking the URL to a donation. Do that and there is no problem.
  - Macha 6y ago
    I have certainly heard of apps removing all links to their website because Apple reviewers have followed a help/feedback link, gotten to their main website, and then found purchase/donation links there and rejected the review.
    - evgen 6y ago
      Any references for this? I have only heard of this happening when the page is clearly for donations (like this case) or almost exclusively composed of 'give us money' content.
      - Macha 6y ago
        https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24192021 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24192021 1. App links to developer's blog. At one point the top post is about their patreon. Apple removes app until post is amended. 2. Also apparently the bandcamp app has no links to their website, for the same reason. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19378914 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19378914 Amazon Kindle app could not link to amazon.com as users could purchase books there without giving apple their cut
comeonseriously 6y ago
So, is does this mean for a charity they take 30% also? For example, here's United Way for Chester County (wherever that is)[0]: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/united-way-of-chester-county/id1320052117 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/united-way-of-chester-county/i... They have a donate button (last image on right). Does Apple take 30% of all that is donated? If so, I find that to be repulsive. [0] I picked Unite Way because they're a large org, not because of any other reason.
- segfaultbuserr 6y ago
  Not sure about Apple, but I know Google has special treatments for formally registered 501(c)(3) orgs and they are allowed to seek donation directly without going through Google Play's commission. Update: Apple Pay appears to have similar policies [0]. [0] https://developer.apple.com/apple-pay/nonprofits/ https://developer.apple.com/apple-pay/nonprofits/
  - rajveermalviya 6y ago
    Same for Signal? They have a donate button in android app.
    - vaduz 6y ago
      Signal is actually registered as a non-profit (which means accounting for where the money is going as well), so iOS version is perfectly fine to have "Donate to Signal" link opening in Safari.
  - m-p-3 6y ago
    What if the non-profit is located outside of the US (and is considered a non-profit in its local jurisdiction)? Do they need to apply for a 501(c)(3), that is if they even can?
    - segfaultbuserr 6y ago
      "proof of registration with the relevant country's regulatory bodies and authorities" also counts. You can read that HN discussion about donations in FOSS apps in my original comment, link [0].
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
dessant 6y ago
Jason was planning to challenge the App Store rejection after the fix for the WireGuard regression has been published, though I'm not sure what's the current state of the issue. The rejection is wrong, because the App Store review guidelines clearly spell out that apps may request donations through Safari. On the other hand, apps cannot use in-app purchases to request donations, unless they are published by an approved nonprofit. 3.2.2 Unacceptable (iv) Unless you are an approved nonprofit or otherwise permitted under Section 3.2.1 (vi) above, collecting funds within the app for charities and fundraisers. Apps that seek to raise money for such causes must be free on the App Store and may only collect funds outside of the app, such as via Safari or SMS. https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/ https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/
- jaywalk 6y ago
  The wording is vague enough that having a link in your app for donations could easily be (and apparently is) considered a violation.
  - dessant 6y ago
    Having a link to an external web page to receive donations is not considered a violation on the App Store, this is a mistake by a reviewer. Collecting funds "within the app" means that the payment flow is completed without leaving the app. They explicitly list two ways for any app to accept donations, by redirecting the user to an external web service opened in Safari, or by collecting payments using a text message. You obviously have to somehow communicate to the user that donations can be made, and that is allowed to happen by showing an external link.
    - vaduz 6y ago
      > "Having a link to an external web page to receive donations [by a registered charity or a non-profit] is not considered a violation on the App Store" Which e.g. "PayPal@zx2c4.com" is not, clearly. The words you are missing are important. One of the reasons why I do not gift money to WireGuard developer(s) is that they have taken the steps to obscure where and to whom the money is going, which is in and of itself fishy. Just labelling something as 'donation' does not make it so. [Edit: line breaks]
jojobas 6y ago
As a Russian movie quote goes, [after someone disapproves of a pair of boots] "Aha, so the boots are good, gotta buy them".
normlEyezd 6y ago
On the flip side, Apple is hosting and distributing this app for free This could be normalizing effort; no end runs around allowed in software from our repo? It’s rather our fault though, yeah? For popularizing their kit and agreeing to pay for “package management as a service” as devs in the first place.
boznz 6y ago
Ive got a dumb phone and an awesome laptop, fuck the apple and google duopoly and their overpriced locked down ecosystems!

furyg3 6y ago

I couldn't agree more. You're not paying for the app, or the service, those are free and you are simply making a donation. I can imagine that Apple may want to define 'FOSS' to some extent (donations need to go to a non-profit with a board, software needs to be licensed under one of the following licenses, etc), but there should be some room for supporting FOSS that is included in an App Store.

segfaultbuserr 6y ago
Yeah, I can imagine that payment links can potentially be used as a loophole for selling unauthorized in-app payment items outside the store. But this is not the case here, nothing is sold, it's literally only a link to the project home page, https://wireguard.com/donations/ https://wireguard.com/donations/.
- zaarn 6y ago
  Simple solution, there are human reviewers for this kinda reason and if the rule is "Open Source Apps get a donation button" then not any random can loophole around. Heck, if both Apple and Google offered a solution by which you provide the source code to build, any necessary secret variables for the build and then it gives you those extra privileges, it would be nice. But that costs money the open source apps don't have.
  - comeonseriously 6y ago
    Apple could win a hole lot of points here by processing the donations themselves. The upside for them is that it would close the loophole.
    - zaarn 6y ago
      Only if they don't take a fee, to effectively steal donation money for themselves.
pyrale 6y ago
> Apple may want to define 'FOSS' to some extent "The stuff we won't pay for, but will make other people pay for, even tho we did nothing for it"
- jojobas 6y ago
  "... therefore we should take our cut."
- hombre_fatal 6y ago
  Funnily enough that’s how everyone views FOSS including us HNers and developers.
Spivak 6y ago
I think Apple/Google see that as a distinction without a difference. You're providing thing, the app, and because of that app and via that app people are giving you money. And since you're not a registered charity they want their pound of flesh.

toyg 6y ago

> when that button is clicked by, perhaps, only 10% of the users 10%? I think FOSS developers would be extremely happy if even 1% clicked on that kind of button. I reckon the actual stat is closer to 0.01%... This is absolute scroogerism from our mobile overlords. We badly need a really-open alternative to the Google/Apple world of feudal taxes.

segfaultbuserr 6y ago
I meant 10% click the "About" button, how many of those actually donate is another question...
enriquto 6y ago
> We badly need a really-open alternative F-Droid is a thing
- scaladev 6y ago
  For now. When they change that optional setting they introduced recently which blocks sideloading applications outside of the official store and make it non-optional, what are we going to do? Use special Chinese Android builds with Ali store (or whatever it's called)? Boiling the frog slowly and all.
  - rthomas6 6y ago
    Android is open source.
    - zaarn 6y ago
      Only by the letter of the law, the android that ends up on your phone consists of mostly closed source binaries from Google that you don't get without installing the play store as well.
      - acct776 6y ago
        You mean the Google add-ons to Android. Regular Android works great in GrapheneOS/CalyxOS/other AOSP variants.

z3t4 6y ago

IANAL - but I'm pretty sure the app platforms are breaking many laws here, not allowing people to freely donate. Like free speech, able to ask for help, freedom to do business, abuse of monopoly. They might be able to get away with a transaction fee, and a store fee, but they should not be able to censor text, links, etc. This is the new Mafia. If you don't play by their rules (theirs, not the law) your business dies!

evgen 6y ago
Yes, you are obviously NAL. The rules are clear and are applied evenly; it is the even application of the rule that is causing the problem here. FOSS-advocates think they are special snowflakes who deserve an exception to the rule about asking for payment. The app stores (both Apple and Google) clearly disagree and think that this is something that will be easily gamed and abused. Nothing is preventing these apps from simply saying 'if you want to learn more or support our project go to <some top-level URL>' instead of directly linking the URL to a donation. Do that and there is no problem.
- Macha 6y ago
  I have certainly heard of apps removing all links to their website because Apple reviewers have followed a help/feedback link, gotten to their main website, and then found purchase/donation links there and rejected the review.
  - evgen 6y ago
    Any references for this? I have only heard of this happening when the page is clearly for donations (like this case) or almost exclusively composed of 'give us money' content.
    - Macha 6y ago
      https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24192021 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24192021 1. App links to developer's blog. At one point the top post is about their patreon. Apple removes app until post is amended. 2. Also apparently the bandcamp app has no links to their website, for the same reason. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19378914 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19378914 Amazon Kindle app could not link to amazon.com as users could purchase books there without giving apple their cut

comeonseriously 6y ago

So, is does this mean for a charity they take 30% also? For example, here's United Way for Chester County (wherever that is)[0]: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/united-way-of-chester-county/id1320052117 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/united-way-of-chester-county/i... They have a donate button (last image on right). Does Apple take 30% of all that is donated? If so, I find that to be repulsive. [0] I picked Unite Way because they're a large org, not because of any other reason.

segfaultbuserr 6y ago
Not sure about Apple, but I know Google has special treatments for formally registered 501(c)(3) orgs and they are allowed to seek donation directly without going through Google Play's commission. Update: Apple Pay appears to have similar policies [0]. [0] https://developer.apple.com/apple-pay/nonprofits/ https://developer.apple.com/apple-pay/nonprofits/
- rajveermalviya 6y ago
  Same for Signal? They have a donate button in android app.
  - vaduz 6y ago
    Signal is actually registered as a non-profit (which means accounting for where the money is going as well), so iOS version is perfectly fine to have "Donate to Signal" link opening in Safari.
- m-p-3 6y ago
  What if the non-profit is located outside of the US (and is considered a non-profit in its local jurisdiction)? Do they need to apply for a 501(c)(3), that is if they even can?
  - segfaultbuserr 6y ago
    "proof of registration with the relevant country's regulatory bodies and authorities" also counts. You can read that HN discussion about donations in FOSS apps in my original comment, link [0].

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

dessant 6y ago

Jason was planning to challenge the App Store rejection after the fix for the WireGuard regression has been published, though I'm not sure what's the current state of the issue. The rejection is wrong, because the App Store review guidelines clearly spell out that apps may request donations through Safari. On the other hand, apps cannot use in-app purchases to request donations, unless they are published by an approved nonprofit. 3.2.2 Unacceptable (iv) Unless you are an approved nonprofit or otherwise permitted under Section 3.2.1 (vi) above, collecting funds within the app for charities and fundraisers. Apps that seek to raise money for such causes must be free on the App Store and may only collect funds outside of the app, such as via Safari or SMS. https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/ https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/

jaywalk 6y ago
The wording is vague enough that having a link in your app for donations could easily be (and apparently is) considered a violation.
- dessant 6y ago
  Having a link to an external web page to receive donations is not considered a violation on the App Store, this is a mistake by a reviewer. Collecting funds "within the app" means that the payment flow is completed without leaving the app. They explicitly list two ways for any app to accept donations, by redirecting the user to an external web service opened in Safari, or by collecting payments using a text message. You obviously have to somehow communicate to the user that donations can be made, and that is allowed to happen by showing an external link.
  - vaduz 6y ago
    > "Having a link to an external web page to receive donations [by a registered charity or a non-profit] is not considered a violation on the App Store" Which e.g. "PayPal@zx2c4.com" is not, clearly. The words you are missing are important. One of the reasons why I do not gift money to WireGuard developer(s) is that they have taken the steps to obscure where and to whom the money is going, which is in and of itself fishy. Just labelling something as 'donation' does not make it so. [Edit: line breaks]

jojobas 6y ago

As a Russian movie quote goes, [after someone disapproves of a pair of boots] "Aha, so the boots are good, gotta buy them".

normlEyezd 6y ago

On the flip side, Apple is hosting and distributing this app for free This could be normalizing effort; no end runs around allowed in software from our repo? It’s rather our fault though, yeah? For popularizing their kit and agreeing to pay for “package management as a service” as devs in the first place.

boznz 6y ago

Ive got a dumb phone and an awesome laptop, fuck the apple and google duopoly and their overpriced locked down ecosystems!