Purism's PureOS To Explore OSTree/Flatpak, Wants To Develop An "Ethical App Store"

[Vistaus]

Also when you ship by apple app store for example you have to agree to extra terms on your binaries license that they decided. So what is ethical about the store you are selling your product in decided the terms you product will be sold under to customers. A store trying to alter device warranty would not be on right.

In fact, Apple even fixes your software for you: http://www.osnews.com/story/30379/29...them_in_AppKit

[Michael_S]

true freedom is a theoretical concept, you always shaft someone.

GNU mostly shafts commercial software developers to give more freedom to hobbist software developers and tinkerers, and to some extent the end users too.

That's not quite true. GNU shafts commercial software developers on an individual basis, but still helps us all on the whole. If I work on MacOS and you work on Playstation, if both are released under a GNU license then I lose out because I'm less likely to have a job but I gain by having more access to control, configure, and reuse my Playstation. You lose out because you're less likely to have a job but win because you have more access to use, control, and reuse MacOS. And so forth.

So it's a tragedy of the commons scenario. The proprietary approach that benefits us all the most individually leaves the world - including us - worse off on the whole.

(Edit: I'm a free-as-in-freedom fan because I have a lot of friends and family members with lower incomes. I can buy a new iPhone or the next laptop and so forth as I want one. But my brother who has a chronic illness and lives on family charity has an awful computing experience because he can only afford very inexpensive devices. If everything was GNU he'd be in a much better position even with the same budget. His situation improved some when he installed a Linux desktop with Xfce on his ancient laptop, but his phone, gaming, and similar options are still terrible.)

[discordian]

That's not quite true. GNU shafts commercial software developers on an individual basis, but still helps us all on the whole. If I work on MacOS and you work on Playstation, if both are released under a GNU license then I lose out because I'm less likely to have a job but I gain by having more access to control, configure, and reuse my Playstation. You lose out because you're less likely to have a job but win because you have more access to use, control, and reuse MacOS. And so forth.

LLVM, bullet library, etc all are nice examples where this developer freedom did exactly help out both ends. Not possible with GPL

So it's a tragedy of the commons scenario. The proprietary approach that benefits us all the most individually leaves the world - including us - worse off on the whole.

You are leaving out that some Projects simply wont exist with GPL. I am still using foobar2000 (closed source and cost free) through wine, handily beats other music players. I am using Sublime (one-time cost) an am seriously considering buying clion.
OS clearly doesnt work for everything, coding is just a small part. If an App is research-sensitive then the one doing the research is faced with copycats just being able to cobble everything up in a ball of mud without adding anything useful (or breaking things). For a concrete example you can take gpsp, where this happened an the author that did all the hard work is regretting developing it in the open (https://github.com/notaz/gpsp/blob/master/readme.txt).

(Edit: I'm a free-as-in-freedom fan because I have a lot of friends and family members with lower incomes. I can buy a new iPhone or the next laptop and so forth as I want one. But my brother who has a chronic illness and lives on family charity has an awful computing experience because he can only afford very inexpensive devices. If everything was GNU he'd be in a much better position even with the same budget. His situation improved some when he installed a Linux desktop with Xfce on his ancient laptop, but his phone, gaming, and similar options are still terrible.)

What you seem to talk about is entitlement for using every cost-free (especially when it comes to a luxury as gaming, and wth do you need to buy apps on a phone?), ignoring that there are multiple reasons to keep your code closed (or closed until you are comfortable releasing it). Calling those authors "unethical" ain't exactly helping.
I would too prefer everything being open source (but not necessarily GPL), but I don't see why exceptional software aint worth buying or has to be strictly open-source.

[starshipeleven]

That's not quite true. GNU shafts commercial software developers on an individual basis, but still helps us all on the whole.

It's more complex to see it, and is also more complex to actually profit making opensource (not just using opensource). In most cases the main drivers of opensource development are companies that sell a service, or hardware, for example.

So it's a tragedy of the commons scenario. The proprietary approach that benefits us all the most individually leaves the world - including us - worse off on the whole.

Again, what is best for a population overall does not mean it is better for each specific individual, and even then the actual final effect is harder to predict than that.

People get shafted and screwed over even with opensource, developers of software did go out of businness because there is a large opensource project that is simply doing better and their smaller software can't compete with it.

Or developers find market niches filled already by a behemoth open project so they can't try to go there with their own new software.

(Edit: I'm a free-as-in-freedom fan because I have a lot of friends and family members with lower incomes.

And I understand that, but choosing a side because it's the best for you and family does not make it automatically best for everyone.

[starshipeleven]

LLVM, bullet library, etc all are nice examples where this developer freedom did exactly help out both ends. Not possible with GPL

Help in what sense, did the original authors get paid or got a job because of their work?
In most cases they are paid already to develop on opensource by a company, or they do it as a hobby project.

Only difference between GPL and permissive is that downstream can "steal" their work and extend it freely in their closed fork, or cannot do so.

You are leaving out that some Projects simply wont exist with GPL. I am still using foobar2000 (closed source and cost free) through wine, handily beats other music players. I am using Sublime (one-time cost) an am seriously considering buying clion.

GPL would not stop freeware, nor licensing applications for cash.
Closed-source applications with a decent following are easy to find on torrent sites and also cracks or serials aren't hard to find, being open source does not change that.
People that don't want to pay... won't. Being closed source won't change that.

OS clearly doesnt work for everything, coding is just a small part. If an App is research-sensitive then the one doing the research is faced with copycats just being able to cobble everything up in a ball of mud without adding anything useful (or breaking things). For a concrete example you can take gpsp, where this happened an the author that did all the hard work is regretting developing it in the open (https://github.com/notaz/gpsp/blob/master/readme.txt).

Sounds like bigger software developers complaining about piracy. Some people should really grow up and see piracy as a sign of their success.

If this guy is complaining about downstream projects which are still open-source, then he should really just stfu, as that's normal for many successful opensource projects and can be useful to learn from their mistakes.

What you seem to talk about is entitlement for using every cost-free (especially when it comes to a luxury as gaming, and wth do you need to buy apps on a phone?), ignoring that there are multiple reasons to keep your code closed (or closed until you are comfortable releasing it). Calling those authors "unethical" ain't exactly helping.
I would too prefer everything being open source (but not necessarily GPL), but I don't see why exceptional software aint worth buying or has to be strictly open-source.

I mostly agree on this point. The only thing that MUST be open source is the OS itself, so it can be trusted. The applications running in it can then be sandboxed and run as untrusted by default.

Not necessarily because closed source is always trying to spy on you, but because closed source applications can't be fixed downstream and they will eventually accumulate bugs that will endanger you. This is also true for some opensource projects, but at leas there you can theoretically go and fix or hack it to be safe again.

[discordian]

Help in what sense, did the original authors get paid or got a job because of their work?
In most cases they are paid already to develop on opensource by a company, or they do it as a hobby project.

Only difference between GPL and permissive is that downstream can "steal" their work and extend it freely in their closed fork, or cannot do so.

unless you want to open your system for random code to be plucked in, you must not include GPL3 at least (Tivo rule).
In what regard do you "steal" code if the authors allow this usage?

Sharing code between closed project helps, to reduce cost which ideally benefits the customer aswell.

GPL would not stop freeware, nor licensing applications for cash.
Closed-source applications with a decent following are easy to find on torrent sites and also cracks or serials aren't hard to find, being open source does not change that.
People that don't want to pay... won't. Being closed source won't change that.

Sounds like bigger software developers complaining about piracy. Some people should really grow up and see piracy as a sign of their success.

Thats alot generalizations.
Piracy has killed software houses aswell.
But its a key point that neither the GPL-everything or the pure capitalistic ideologies are bad from their intentions, but that both of them break at human nature.
GPL-everything would cripple innovation (in the areas where there arent secondary incomes over services), pure capitalistic leads to monopolies.

And that's not even covering open vs closed source, they dont map directly to GPL and commercial.

If this guy is complaining about downstream projects which are still open-source, then he should really just stfu, as that's normal for many successful opensource projects and can be useful to learn from their mistakes.

Yeah, he did - he stopped developing OS.
downstream did nothing but add non-working stuff, but preach their stuff in forums. The result was that users just repeatedly slam him for being slow or not listening to their wishes.

I mostly agree on this point. The only thing that MUST be open source is the OS itself, so it can be trusted. The applications running in it can then be sandboxed and run as untrusted by default.

Not necessarily because closed source is always trying to spy on you, but because closed source applications can't be fixed downstream and they will eventually accumulate bugs that will endanger you. This is also true for some opensource projects, but at leas there you can theoretically go and fix or hack it to be safe again.

Sure, I would go as far as adding that you would need a desktop and the common apps OS and free-of-charge. I don't agree with specialist software having to be OS or free.

[kpedersen]

Google Play, Apple Store, Microsoft Store.

These aren't actually AppStores. Unlike "stores", you don't get to "buy" and "own" things. You only get to "rent" and "borrow" due to their invasive DRM and poor future lifespan.

They are basically digital versions of the UK store Blockbusters. The only difference is that they are a lot more expensive.

The Pirate Bay is more of a store than these are. You actually get to own the software (albeit for $0). It is a shame you can't actually pay, I would be happy to pay the hackers and crackers lots of $$ for their hard work and effort! The cracking industry is certainly one we should all support!

Likewise if a hacker could break in to a companies server and obtain the source code for a number of games, I would pay even more for that! Source-code is more important to me than gold!

[starshipeleven]

These aren't actually AppStores. Unlike "stores", you don't get to "buy" and "own" things. You only get to "rent" and "borrow" due to their invasive DRM and poor future lifespan.

Google Play is better in this regard, as long as you aren't paying for an app (use the free versions) you own the app. you can also download and install it manually without rooting/jailbreaking or enabling developer modes.

They are basically digital versions of the UK store Blockbusters. The only difference is that they are a lot more expensive.

Blockbuster was a world-wide thing, btw.

The Pirate Bay is more of a store than these are. You actually get to own the software (albeit for $0). It is a shame you can't actually pay, I would be happy to pay the hackers and crackers lots of $$ for their hard work and effort!

Stolen shit isn't "owned", it's stolen.

The cracking industry is certainly one we should all support!

Likewise if a hacker could break in to a companies server and obtain the source code for a number of games, I would pay even more for that! Source-code is more important to me than gold!

Stealing is wrong and should NOT be encouraged, as you can become their target just as well. They aren't doing it out of kindness of their hearts, but to spread malware and get ad revenue.

[sverris]

I suspect all you're going to get is a rant about how applications and being closed source and having copy protection is totally wrong and shouldn't be allowed. It's the usual "private ownership is theft" stuff you get from the Stallman types and those people can be truly fanatic.

Each to their own... While preferring open over closed I don't think people should be forced to distribute their software as open source and if they want to protect it with node-locked DRM then that's their (regrettable) choice.

I think, the unethical aspect is rather the aspect of market manipulation and non-free competition, because centralized stores (like from Apple) are made for total control. iOS-devices are not only running on closed source, it is also impossible to run an iOS-app without Apple's control and approval. Apple is then like a bank that always wins. In principle, the user of an iOS-device is not really the owner. Apple can say to any iOS-app-developer: 'You play by our rules, or get lost.' Imagine such a situation in the field of desktop computers... I am not against private ownership, but what Apple does is really the perversion of private ownership. And on top of that: such centralized structures are way easier to control by institutions like the NSA, while decentralized structures make such control way more difficult.

[eigenlambda]

* The Steam app can't install mobile games on Apple or Google. Why? Because Apple and Google demand their cut
* Gab.ai can't have an app on Apple or Google. Why? Because they can censor whoever they want to
* Technically, open source is possible on Apple and Google. In practice no one patches it because it's hard to modify and test apps. Why? Limited competition, intentionally hard to install apps.

Stallman doesn't have to be right about communism to be right that there is no competitive justification for barring users from modifying the printer driver. While there is a business case for getting that 30% cut of app sales, if there was a platform with better development tools and an app store that didn't block apps for any other reason than being malware, it would quickly dominate with high quality free software.