-
None of the OSI or SPDX approved Free / Open Source Software licences do demand that binaries must be free of charge. Most of them even do not demand that the source code must be available to all and free of change, only that the source code must be made available to a licensee (who might have to pay a lot for the licence) upon request and this may incur a handling fee.
-
Actually FOSS generates billions of revenue either by being paid for or by being only available under a paid subscription. Examples are RHEL, SLES and many more. Still, in many cases nothing prevents one of obtaining the source code of this software (mostly because it is publicly available); the principal reason why people do not compile this software by themselves to use this software free-of-charge is commercial support and third-party certifications, which determines the support status of software by these third-parties or for certain use-cases (e.g. FIPS 140 certifications).
-
SailfishOS is not an “Open Source OS”, it merely comprises more than 95% FOSS. SailfishOS as a product is proprietary software.
Please demand the complete sources of SailfishOS under FOSS licenses and publish them when you received them:
I would be extremely happy to see that happening, because it would enable a sustainable future for SailfishOS, a much more thriving SailfishOS developer community, ensure that SailfishOS can still be maintained when Jolla / Jollyboys go bankrupt again etc.
true Linux OS?
Anything which uses a Linux kernel is a “true Linux OS”. This includes many proprietary software distributions, e.g. almost all firmwares of small routers, infotainment consoles in cars, planes etc., modern TVs (“SmartTV”) and billions of other embedded devices etc. In most of these cases one does not pay specifically for the software, but for the whole product including the software, hence the price of the software is not explicitly visible to the customers. Also, in many cases there is only a very small proprietary software component with which the software company prohibits the whole software stack to be rebuilt by anyone else while owning the rights FOSS-licenses grant to a licensee (i.e. the “four freedoms of FOSS”); in case of SailfishOS this is primarily Lipstick and Silica, IIRC. But lots of embedded devices run a software stack comprising 100% FOSS.
There isn’t one single living example that it would work.
No, there are billions; very likely you use some of them.
Besides that, without knowing the exact rules of Jolla store, I think nothing is stopping you from from taking payment already in the existing app store. You just have to code the payment routine yourself. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
I do not know, as I do not distribute any of my software via the Jolla Store, due to its overly strict and ever-changing rule-set. But likely the Jolla Store rule-set prohibits in-app payments.
But that is actually exactly the core point: Other app stores (Google’s Play Store, Apples Store(s), Microsoft Store, even some third-party app stores for Android) incentivise offering apps there by providing a payment framework, so a developer only has to provide the IBAN of a bank account and a price for each of his apps; additionally the app store provider can demand a share of the revenue (and they do, often overly so), which finances this service (for Apple & Google: “over-finances”, i.e. generates a huge surplus).
This is a “win-win” situation for developers and a store provider.
But it is a lot of hassle if each developer has to implement, deploy and maintain such a payment framework: This means multiplying these efforts to an extent they are not worth it.
If I remember correct, it was ones tried by the Fernschreiber developer.
The developer “werkwolf” tried this for a couple of his apps and ultimately decided that the revenue was not worth the hassle.
Note that there is some proprietary software in the Jolla Store (for SailfishOS 1 and 2), though AFAICS all this software was abandoned by their developers, very likely because they could not generate any revenue from offering their apps there.
Many developers asked for the option to offer paid apps (FOSS and proprietary ones) in the Jolla Store during the first five years of SailfishOS: Almost all of these left the SailfishOS ecosystem and I am pretty sure seeing their demand not being addressed at all (Jolla stayed silent to these requests, IIRC after initially announcing paid software as a feature of the Jolla Store in 2013) heavily contributed to that.
Side note
A “lesson learnt” from ca. 35 years of FOSS development is:
Free / Open Source Software has to be (directly or indirectly) commercially successful to be sustainable.
- How else would one pay the developers?
- The Free Software Foundation (FSF) devoted a large part of the introduction and a full section of their essay on “What is Free Software?” to the topic “commercial FOSS”.
- Debian GNU/Linux is often cited as an exception to this rule, but even that is not true, because many sponsors and contributors of Debian earn their money with Debian. Hence this is only one example for “indirectly commercially successful”.
- Unfortunately this is something Jolla has not understood at all: They still believe they must proprietarise SailfishOS by some proprietary components or others will take their product and compete with them, being cheaper because they do not have to carry development and maintenance costs. But this consideration leaves out many aspects as “time to market”, a copycat cannot support a product it does not know thoroughly etc. Others had this belief, too … in the 1990s (e.g. SuSE utilised their YAST to proprietarise SuSE Linux, but open-soured YAST after a few years).
Note that I am personally not interested in offering paid apps, because developing and maintaining FOSS is a spare-time activity for me. But currently it is impossible for anyone to easily generate revenue from developing and maintaining apps for SailfishOS.
TL;DR
A multitude of reasons exist why a payment framework for software offered in the Jolla Store makes a lot of sense, especially for Jolla / Jollayboys, logically for app developers interested in offering paid apps and last but not least for a thriving software ecosystem for SailfishOS.