Why was an EXCEPTION of GPLv3 added to the license file for OsmAnd+?

[DTHG]

Does anyone know why

EXCEPTION of GPLv3 :

* Publishing applications using the OsmAnd GPLv3 code to Google Play, Amazon Market or Apple Store should be done with written permission*

was added to the license file for OsmAnd+?

[Harry van der Wolf]

I assume because there are a number of "pirating" applications on the play store which are 100% OsmAnd copies and are commercial as well.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Osmand" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osmand+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Mirco Zorzo]

I'm not sure if is, but Nogago seems very similar and OsmAnd derived.

[Grabow Commuter]

Hallo,

sorry, I didn't see your comment. I just opend a topic "Licence changed" (https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/osmand/VFL_8mw8S_E). 

This exception is not allowed. It is a violation against the copyleft. You can not simply add exceptions to the GLPv3 Licence afterwards.

Software under GPLv3 can be re-published by anyone. So, if you sell GPLv3 OpenSource, you must be aware that someone other can publish for free.

Let us see, if they delete this exception - otherwise the developers could get in trouble.

Best

Grabow

[Sander Deryckere]

If "pirated" versions on the markets are the problem, the I think section 7 of the GPLv3 license must be used. (http://opensource.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html)

Section 7 explicitly allows you (being the authors) to add attribution requirements to the license. In this case, it could be worded that the OsmAnd project should always be mentioned on the landing pages. That is

* On the home webpage (including logo), with a link to the OsmAnd home page

* As the sentence "based on OsmAnd" or "uses OsmAnd code" the first page of the Play store without clicking on "more info" (don't know if a link is possible here)

* Similar requirements for other stores

I think these requirements are liberal enough for benevolent forks (f.e. people who want added features that won't make it in the main app, and aren't possible as extension), while the plain-copy "pirated" apps would be a bit less successful with these attribution requirements.

Forbidding forks to be published on other stores is indeed not possible in combination with GPLv3 AFAICS.

Regards,

Sander

[Grabow Commuter]

... these "pirated" versions only become a problem, if you charge for the "full" version or if you publish "free"-versions with limited features. Then, of course it will become luctrative to "pirates".

 

However, adding restrictions to Free-Software is not a good idea, because - at someday - this software wouln't be 'free' anymore.

 

And by the way - who decided which store required "written permission"?

 

Here something is going wrong with the Osmand project - this great free project mutates into a project, driven by commercial interests. Someone suddenly wants to control the publishing channels and restrict re-publishing. That's definitly not the intention of "free" software...

 

Best Grabow 

[Sander Deryckere]

I've worked with other projects (end-user apps), and even when you give the final product for free (pre-compiled, runnable, ...), there are still "pirated" versions.

In my case, some people tried to sell CDs with the software on eBay, for quite a lot more than the production and transportation costs. So I don't think you can rule out pirates, but you can limit their freedoms to ethical levels (f.e. it would be ethical in the eBay case to sell it for less, and mentioning that you can also download it for free).

Next to that, I rather like OsmAnd's business model. I makes people a lot more likely to contribute.

* When someone is interested in the product, and doesn't care a lot about money, he just pays it, and contributed in that way

* When someone is interested in the product, but doesn't want to pay, he starts reading about that development version, or the version on fDroid, and there's a bigger chance he either gets involved in OsmAnd development or in OSM mapping.

--

[t.]

The app 'nogago' which is cited in a posting above states on their Google Play page:

- nogago Hiking Biking Maps & Navigation is open source and licensed under the GPL v3

- learn more at opensource.nogago.com

- nogago Hiking Biking Maps & Navigation has been forked from OSMAND

- last updated February 28, 2014

[Josef Kufner]

If they cite this somewhere in their app too, it is not violation of
GPL3 and everything is ok. This is how opensource works. It may not be
good for bussiness model used by Osmand, but license is not violated.

But since Nogago is also opensource, Osmand can backport any
improvements from Nogago. Also some users may be unhappy with Nogago and
switch to original -- to Osmand.

Only sollution is to be better than the other guy.

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Osmand" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to osmand+un...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:osmand+un...@googlegroups.com>.

[Max]

Victor wrote about it:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/osmand/PoD3LuWzbzk/KJLPgRSwS4YJ

[sympa]

The risk also exists that a fork will be more successful than the original project, just over licensing policies. That has happened before...

[matthew....@gatech.edu]

On Thursday, November 27, 2014 10:46:53 AM UTC-5, Josef Kufner wrote:

If they cite this somewhere in their app too, it is not violation of
GPL3 and everything is ok. This is how opensource works. It may not be
good for bussiness model used by Osmand, but license is not violated.

Agreed.  I have purchased OsmAnd+ myself from Google Play (even though I know of places I could legally get the same open source code for free), and I support open source apps making money.

However, it is not in the spirit of open source to have a restriction ("Publishing applications using the OsmAnd GPLv3 code to Google Play, Amazon Market or Apple Store should be done with written permission* ") on where forks can be published.

As things normally go, the GPL is that permission.

Matt Flaschen

[Grabow Commuter]

Yes, I think they just want to make money right now and tend to protect themselfs from cheaper (cloned) versions. Anyhow, it is not acceptable that suddenly someone added this statement without any discussion in the community. I gonna switch to osmand~ (fdroid) which is still a "real" free version.