Remove the paid editor sdk

[inson1]

[Aga-C]

I'm closing this, because after quick research I found it's not true: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html.en#FSWithNFLibs. If you want to discuss using proprietary editor in the future, please use discussions.

EDIT: It was originally the reply to original quote from other discussion: "Per the GNU GPL, proprietary SDKs cannot be combined with GPL code in the same project. Either way, this proprietary library will have to be removed so that the project stops violating the GPL."

[12people]

@Aga-C Tibor added it, but he was acting like the code was strictly his own, so he can be considered to be adding it to his own proprietary project.

Now, it seems like he might have been violating the GPL because he really wasn't the sole code contributor, but that doesn't automatically give us the rights to violate the GPL too.

[12people]

(I'm assuming Tibor didn't have contributors sign a CLA — if he did, then he really might have been the sole copyright holder and was well within his rights to do anything he wanted with the project.)

[12people]

One more note about this: it's actually not that uncommon for some projects to have a free software basis and then have a proprietary copy of that project with non-free additions on top of it.

This is basically the definition of an "open core" model. Gitlab is like this, for example. Or IntelliJ Studio.

There's also dual licensing, which is what e.g. Qt does — offer up free GPL and paid proprietary versions of the same software.

These projects have full ownership of the code, so they can do this without violating the GPL. If anyone else tried to do the same thing with their code, though, they would be violating the GPL.

[Aga-C]

@12people I've found the topic in Gallery about it (SimpleMobileTools/Simple-Gallery#1706), and wanted to show that Tibor was in fact ignoring the license, but I've noticed that you reacted on his comment there 😄. I thought it was done by him in a more "normal" manner, not that he was just ignoring every legal fact from the start... I understand now the point why it should be removed after I've dug a bit more in older topics and that LICENSE is not modified in any way.

Let's leave this to @naveensingh to decide what he wants to do - refactor the code and remove the editor before the first release, or leave it like it is. For sure, it has to be done before license is bought.

[inson1]

@Aga-C it was in discussions + naveensingh answered it, so that is why I didnt do any research :) I changed the name + it needs to by removed anyway, because there arent going to be any pro versions and the sdk costs money - easiest would be to remove it :) - even if there would be pro versions I would be for removing it anyway
May you reopen it?

https://github.com/orgs/FossifyOrg/discussions/9#discussioncomment-7756115
Plus https://github.com/orgs/FossifyOrg/discussions/9#discussioncomment-7793145

[inson1]

@naveensingh may we add this to issues?

[naveensingh]

I haven't done any research on this yet so let's keep it here for now.

[pastk]

The Gallery Pro version distributed via F-Droid doesn't have this proprietary SDK, right?
I assume it uses some other (developed in-house?) editor, so there should be no need to refactor something for GP version, just use the F-Droid code version for GP releases too, is that right?

[Aga-C]

Code is the same, just paid editor is not bundled into F-Droids APK thanks to the build variant.

[naveensingh]

Ok, @12people thanks for pointing this out, the proprietary editor has been removed.

Related:

For the same reasons, any in-app-purchase donation option (using Google Play) can't be added to the project because the billing client library that is used to request purchases is closed-sourced. See https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/159151141. I'm not 100% percent sure and Google Play policies may have changed but last I checked direct donation links weren't allowed either so there's that (unless you are a registered charitable organization).

[naveensingh]

@inson1

A charitable organization is a type of non-profit organization, but not all non-profits are necessarily charitable organizations. It looks like they have replaced the 'charitable organization' part with 'Google Play's billing system must not be used in cases of, among others, tax-exempt donations'. An old outdated answer is here.

The payment policy received quite a few updates since the last time I checked:
https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answer/9858738

Unless I'm foggy and need more sleep, section 4 on that page seems to say we can't put donation links in the app. I have contacted the google play support team about this, hopefully they will provide some direct answer regarding this. If we still can't put direct donation links in the apps, pro versions are an alternative. We'll see, it's not a priority right now. The release is.

[naveensingh]

Answer from the Google Play developer support:

Hi Naveen,

Thank you for contacting Google Play Developer Support Team.
Please understand that while we do not currently offer a donation feature, if you're a certified 501(c) you may use Play in-app billing or a secure third party system to collect payments. Please note there is a 30% transaction fee for all Play in-app billing transactions.

If you are not 501(c) certified, you may not accept donations on an app provided through the Play Store.

If you have any further questions regarding Google Play policy, please visit the Developer Policy Center or contact your legal representative.

[inson1]

@naveensingh for example signal is 501(c)(3) 
idk if non profit from India would count. It doesnt seem like it.

[naveensingh]

I guess pro versions will do for now, with or without extra features (if the policy allows it).

[12people]

As long as the extra features are GPL-licensed, it's fine. :)