> Apple may want to define 'FOSS' to some extent

"The stuff we won't pay for, but will make other people pay for, even tho we did nothing for it"

"... therefore we should take our cut."

Funnily enough that’s how everyone views FOSS including us HNers and developers.

Yeah, I can imagine that payment links can potentially be used as a loophole for selling unauthorized in-app payment items outside the store. But this is not the case here, nothing is sold, it's literally only a link to the project home page, https://wireguard.com/donations/.

Simple solution, there are human reviewers for this kinda reason and if the rule is "Open Source Apps get a donation button" then not any random can loophole around.

Heck, if both Apple and Google offered a solution by which you provide the source code to build, any necessary secret variables for the build and then it gives you those extra privileges, it would be nice. But that costs money the open source apps don't have.

Apple could win a hole lot of points here by processing the donations themselves. The upside for them is that it would close the loophole.

Only if they don't take a fee, to effectively steal donation money for themselves.

I think Apple/Google see that as a distinction without a difference. You're providing thing, the app, and because of that app and via that app people are giving you money. And since you're not a registered charity they want their pound of flesh.