4 ms·

Would it be worth it for open source projects to try and distribute on the app store? Given that there are already examples on Android of open source apps being

Would it be worth it for open source projects to try and distribute on the app store? Given that there are already examples on Android of open source apps being recompiled, name changed, and resubmitted to the store, wouldn't this kind of thing be even more prevalent on a full computing platform? I guess it's kind of a moot point if they are put on the store for free, though.

cryptoz 15y ago
Your post confuses me. If a developer builds an open source application, isn't that developer implicitly inviting others to copy the code and do with it whatever they like (depending on the license, of course)? Ignoring app stores, isn't that the way open source has been all along? And including app stores, what difference does it make? I am the sole developer of an open source Android app (pressureNET), but nobody has copied the code and re-uploaded - if they did, isn't that just "forking"? I'd be thrilled if anyone found my project worthwhile enough for that - it's never happened to me before. I guess I'm confused why you think that forking is 'risk'. That's not only the expected behavior, but the hoped-for behavior, isn't it?
- dagw 15y ago
  Many (not all) open source licenses require attribution and limit to what extent you can change the license. Many apps in the app store violate these requirements. The problem is not forking, but taking open source code and trying to pass it off as your own closed source creation.
  - cryptoz 15y ago
    > Many apps in the app store violate these requirements. Ah. So the problem is that someone may act illegally? That's always been the case, since the dawn of time. If you're going to develop some open source software, of course there is a risk to you that someone may copy it and not follow the license. But there's significantly greater risk to the person copying, correct? If it's a crime (is it?) they risk having a criminal record and all that. So, there's nothing new here, no new risks that open source developers haven't been facing since always, and nothing at all unique about this situation. In fact, it's probably a lot better now since you have a single source to contact (the app store owner) to let them know there is a TOS violation and illegal content on their site. In previous times, there may have been no recourse (say, the copier has hosted the content on a Russian domain; you've got nowhere to turn). All in all, it seems the situation for open source developers is significantly better than it ever has been regarding illegal copying of their software.
- wmf 15y ago
  Technically this is true, but people are concerned about fairness. It seems unfair if the people who wrote the app are getting nothing while people who did "no work" are making money. (Of course, marketing is work and if it's possible to make money with just a little marketing, the upstream open source projects should be doing that themselves.)

cryptoz 15y ago

Your post confuses me. If a developer builds an open source application, isn't that developer implicitly inviting others to copy the code and do with it whatever they like (depending on the license, of course)? Ignoring app stores, isn't that the way open source has been all along? And including app stores, what difference does it make? I am the sole developer of an open source Android app (pressureNET), but nobody has copied the code and re-uploaded - if they did, isn't that just "forking"? I'd be thrilled if anyone found my project worthwhile enough for that - it's never happened to me before. I guess I'm confused why you think that forking is 'risk'. That's not only the expected behavior, but the hoped-for behavior, isn't it?

dagw 15y ago
Many (not all) open source licenses require attribution and limit to what extent you can change the license. Many apps in the app store violate these requirements. The problem is not forking, but taking open source code and trying to pass it off as your own closed source creation.
- cryptoz 15y ago
  > Many apps in the app store violate these requirements. Ah. So the problem is that someone may act illegally? That's always been the case, since the dawn of time. If you're going to develop some open source software, of course there is a risk to you that someone may copy it and not follow the license. But there's significantly greater risk to the person copying, correct? If it's a crime (is it?) they risk having a criminal record and all that. So, there's nothing new here, no new risks that open source developers haven't been facing since always, and nothing at all unique about this situation. In fact, it's probably a lot better now since you have a single source to contact (the app store owner) to let them know there is a TOS violation and illegal content on their site. In previous times, there may have been no recourse (say, the copier has hosted the content on a Russian domain; you've got nowhere to turn). All in all, it seems the situation for open source developers is significantly better than it ever has been regarding illegal copying of their software.
wmf 15y ago
Technically this is true, but people are concerned about fairness. It seems unfair if the people who wrote the app are getting nothing while people who did "no work" are making money. (Of course, marketing is work and if it's possible to make money with just a little marketing, the upstream open source projects should be doing that themselves.)