An official request to distribute FFS binaries on Flathub

[Ripper]

Hello,
I'm the maintainer of the FFS flatpak package distributed by Flathub:
https://flathub.org/apps/details/org.freefilesync.FreeFileSync

In the past, I compiled FFS from source, but due to various problems (like FFS depending on custom-patched system libraries, and others) I switched to distributing FFS Linux binaries, as provided on the download page:
https://freefilesync.org/download.php

I have been notified by a community member that the current license seems to disallow that. Specifically, on https://freefilesync.org/faq.php#distribute it says:

The software must be distributed free of charge and without modification to the contents of the installer package. Redistributing the installer package with any files added, removed, or modified is prohibited. The inclusion of the installer package or any of the included files in a different archive, or in a different installer is forbidden. For example, the integration into a third-party automated installation mechanism is forbidden without the prior permission of the author.

I'm not a lawyer, but it seems that converting the provided binaries (previously included in a tarball, now in a runnable installer) into a flatpak package is currently forbidden.

I'm writing this post to request a permission from the FFS author (Zenju), so that Flathub can continue to distribute FFS pre-compiled binaries. If you, Zenju, don't agree with this, I'll either need to switch to compiling from source again, or remove FFS from Flathub, if I understand it correctly.

Thank you for your response.

[garbulix]

The main problem to me is if that's even possible (from law point of view) to forbid distributing a program and using GPL license the same time? GPL allows you to distribute a program (at least according to that summary for lazy people: https://tldrlegal.com/license/gnu-general-public-license-v3-(gpl-3)).
In my opinion previous versions were distributed legally (even though there might be the same info in the FAQ), because the program itself wasn't modified.

But, in the other hand, it is also not a good idea to fight with the creator (from moral point of view), because it would be toxic for the community. Even if the author uses not-that-good way of distributing software.

As a main problem I see the fact none of us (I guess including the authors) is a lawyer.

[Ripper]

Again, IANAL, but in general, I'm pretty sure the *program authors* can distribute program binaries under a completely different license than the sources, that's their decision. Of course, if the project links to some strong copyleft libraries, then the resulting binary must reflect that. But quickly looking at FFS dependencies, that doesn't seem to be the case here.

So, if the FFS binaries are not claimed to be under GPL (I haven't found that info), then the mentioned distribution restriction should be well within author's rights. IANAL.

[Plerry]

> As a main problem I see the fact none of us ... is a lawyer.
Why do you see that as a problem?
Lawyers disagree or have objections by definition.
That's how they make their money ...

[Ripper]

Please let's keep this thread on-topic, and wait for Zenju's response, thank you.

[Zenju]

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to allow it. The reason is (unsurprisingly) that third-party installers skip the "Support the Project" message during installation. With all advertisements being completely gone from the FFS installer at this point, direct support by users is what keeps the project financially afloat. https://freefilesync.org/faq.php#advertisement

[Ripper]

That's unfortunate, but thank you for your response, Zenju. I'll make the necessary changes on Flathub. The installer is of course not shown when installing the flatpak, it's similar to installing e.g. rpm/deb packages.

I understand it is difficult to make money on an opensource project. But I wonder, why is it so important to show the installer? Wouldn't it be more impactful to inform users in the FFS UI itself? E.g. there could be a Donate or Upgrade button in a corner, or a dialog could be displayed occasionally on startup, asking users to financially support the project in order to keep it alive. If this was the case, then having FFS on Flathub or in Linux distributions would no longer work against your interests, but alongside them. Having greater userbase would increase the chance of having more paying/supporting users. Am I wrong about it? I'm not trying to change your mind, just thinking aloud about possible approaches with which both you and your Linux users could benefit.

[xCSxXenon]

A periodic pop-up on startup is a gross option in my opinion. I would go out of my way to find a different solution considering the vast range of FOSS. A small box in a corner also isn't engaging enough. The current solution is attention grabbing but isn't turning FFS into shareware

[garbulix]

A periodic pop-up on startup is a gross option in my opinion.

but on the other hand you have (at least in non-donate version) periodic pop-up about available new version. You could change that pop-up into a donate pop-up. I don't see a big difference.

Also, in my opinion, enforcing people to use separate installers is nonsense on systems that have repositories support built-in.

[John1]

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to allow it. The reason is (unsurprisingly) that third-party installers skip the "Support the Project" message during installation. With all advertisements being completely gone from the FFS installer at this point, direct support by users is what keeps the project financially afloat. https://freefilesync.org/faq.php#advertisement

Like the others said the current situation is really far from ideal and I don't think installer with ads fixes anything. I know you have been running this project for very long time but I'm really not sure how successful this installer campaign is or if you can even get the right data from it.

Let's talk money - how much in donations would you need per month to allow the "Donation Edition" on something reasonable like Flathub, Snap or similar repository?

I have been thinking about a donation but the fact that I'm now forced to install some binary from a 3rd party website really puts me off and I'm still on fence in switching to a competing project.

I left world of Windows behind long time ago and for a good reason, I would be willing to bet that most of the donations are generated from IT professionals using Mac and Linux (even though it may be that vast majority of non-paying users use Windows but if they don't pay it's not relevant).

Just my 2 cents.

[John1]

Btw if anybody wonders - the "donation" edition is NOT compatible with the flathub distribution - ie you can't upgrade your license to use multiple connections & use the flathub repository - couple of dollars down the drain... (tried couple of months ago)