5 ms·

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 t

by 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.

by furyg3 6y ago

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.