Re: Octave fior Android Requires Payment

[Nicholas Jankowski]

On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Nicholas Jankowski <address@hidden> wrote:

On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 5:23 PM, Michael Goffioul <address@hidden> wrote:

On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 5:15 PM, Mike Miller <address@hidden> wrote:

On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 16:58:08 -0400, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-05-19 at 12:42 -0700, Thomas D. Dean wrote:
>> The Octave app was listed as a free app until I installed it and was
>> surprised by the requirement for payment.
>
> I believe this may be a misunderstanding of the word "free". It
> doesn't mean gratis in this context. It simply means you are free to
> recompile it yourself and not pay, if that's what you want to do.

I think Thomas is referring to the Google Play store entry [1] which
lists the app as "free" (gratis) to install. After installing, it
apparently functions fully for some trial period, after which time I
gather it requests a donation in order to continue functioning. I have
not tried it, but this is the way it seems to be described. Some may
view this as a "bait and switch", since the initial installation
appeared to be "free". I can't say if that's what's going on here, but
this may explain Thomas' reactions he has shared with us.

None of which has anything to do with violating the GPL.

  [1] https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.octave

Personally (and I insist this is only a personal feeling), I *hate* in-app purchases. I would happily purchase a full app upfront, but I've never used in-app purchase and I probably never will; usually I delete such "free" app where you can only progress by using in-app purchases. Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I think paying for the full app upfront is a better business model that pseudo-free apps (at least, more customer-friendly IMO).

Michael.

While I mostly agree with that sentiment, I think I'd be fine with this model if it was obviously listed as a Free Trial, or similar. Actually, it's possible that this disclosure is mandated by the Play store developer terms, specifically the last item on the list. possibly also the payment method one if the 'donation' is not processed through the play store billing service:

https://play.google.com/about/developer-content-policy.html

Paid and Free Apps

• App purchases: Developers charging for apps and downloads from Google Play must do so by using Google Play's payment system.
• In-app purchases:
• • Developers offering virtual goods or currencies within a game downloaded from Google Play must use Google Play's in-app billing service as the method of payment.
  • Developers offering additional content, services or functionality within another category of app downloaded from Google Play must use Google Play's in-app billing service as the method of payment, except:
    • where payment is primarily for physical goods or services (e.g., buying movie tickets, or buying a publication where the price also includes a hard copy subscription); or
    • where payment is for digital content or goods that may be consumed outside of the app itself (e.g., buying songs that can be played on other music players).
• Developers must not mislead users about the apps they are selling nor about any in-app services, goods, content or functionality they are selling. If your product description on Google Play refers to in-app features to which a specific or additional charge applies, your description must clearly notify users that payment is required to access those features.

Checked out the app page. it's listed as a free app. no mention of a free trial. but it does specify:

"Offers in-app purchases"

"A fee is required for the use of this app, but you pay what you want/what you can."

So it seems to follow the letter of the law for the Play Store. Now, the question is: does the user experience match what it states. From the earlier conversation it seems that you can download it for free, try it for a little while, then after that you have to pay for use. I guess that could be spelled out more explicitly in the main app description. Or, if it doesn't already, maybe the nag screen could spell out the terms a bit more completely.

As everyone else has said, should be no direct GPL issue here. Anyone else is free to recompile and offer up their own version gratis. But he's also free to ask for compensation for his labor. Just because we're used to getting free software for free doesn't mean it's always that way.