Ubuntu To Get Its Own Package Format, App Installer

[Detructor]

GPL is not about selling copies of software. GPL is about selling your SKILLS.
You can as well set liberation money on your software, ie "reverse"-kickstarter. Blender was born this way.

If you apply classic proprietary "sell copies" monetarization approach to GPL, don't worry to become a butthurt. Its like trying to catch water with a colander

I agree with your description. My problem is, that I don't see how you'd get a large enough batch of people that'd collect money and pay for it. You'd need to have a very interesting/original piece of software. Something 'average' (for example if something has been done already a few times and is available) won't do. Which is bad for me, since I lack the creativity to come up with something that hasn't be done already.

Also I still don't like the idea that someone is able to make money with a complete program I wrote. (if someone is using some source code from me, that's fine by me.) In my eyes the GPL is all about rights of the 'customer' aka the user, the developer has nearly no rights and that's what I'm not comfortable about.

[madjr]

Downside is 1000 copies of same library.

1000? not even in windows or osx I have this problem...


And in Android I like or need to move most of my apps to the SD card you know.

[madjr]

Imagine you are developing software and you want to build packages and test them on as many OSes as you can (different distributions, x86, ARM, x86_64 ...). You would probably install them in virtual machine and I am pretty sure 1TB won't be enought.
And it's not only about storage. You have to update all copies, if vulnerability is found.

hmm, I think this is what 99% of developers of the world already do.

[leonmaxx]

Please someone, kill those guys who use python to write system tools and apps.

[madjr]

I agree with your description. My problem is, that I don't see how you'd get a large enough batch of people that'd collect money and pay for it. You'd need to have a very interesting/original piece of software. Something 'average' (for example if something has been done already a few times and is available) won't do. Which is bad for me, since I lack the creativity to come up with something that hasn't be done already.

Also I still don't like the idea that someone is able to make money with a complete program I wrote. (if someone is using some source code from me, that's fine by me.) In my eyes the GPL is all about rights of the 'customer' aka the user, the developer has nearly no rights and that's what I'm not comfortable about.

different projects, different motives/necessities, different licences.

Is why ubuntu imo tries to cater or balance the necessities of each one and not be either in the extreme that is apple, nor in the other extreme that would be something like RMS-OS

[LightBit]

1000? not even in windows or osx I have this problem...

On Windows there are a lot of library copies.

And in Android I like or need to move most of my apps to the SD card you know.

How is that related?

[Calinou]

Please someone, kill those guys who use python to write system tools and apps.

Better have something slow than nothing. Would you code it in C++ for us, please? Thanks in advance.

[LightBit]

Better have something slow than nothing. Would you code it in C++ for us, please? Thanks in advance.

System tools and apps writtern in C already exist.

[GreatEmerald]

Haha, so you confirm my suspicions - its all about wasting time trying to fix broken proprietary mindset.

Eh? I agree with your viewpoint, actually. It's just that some things, like games, can't really become open-source due to the way their selling scheme works. You can't really sell game engines in any other way. And while games themselves could be open-source with paid assets, the engines can't. Even if they used a crowd-funding scheme for developing engines, most people would not participate in it and would instead wait for it to become a reality, then use it for free.

The only way to make the process a bit more fair would still include the source being proprietary, just without a fixed price to buy a copy of the source - the development process could have a fixed sum of money the developer needs to create a game engine, and then at first it would get crowd-funded to an extent (just for a smaller sum of money than is actually needed for development), and everyone who would want to obtain the source would have to pay into a fund. At first the prices would be fairly steep, but the money from every person contributing to the fund would mostly go towards refunding the money the previous people spent buying the license. So, for example, if it at first costed $1000 for a license, the first person to buy it would set the price to $900, the second to buy it would contribute $800 towards the development costs and $100 to refund the first person for the price shift, the third would pay $850 from which $50 would go to the first contributor, $50 would go to the second, $750 would go to the developer etc. until eventually all costs would only go to other contributors, effectively making all the contributors equal in terms of money spent, and the developer forced to either innovate again, or add a Red Hat-like maintenance plan for the code, so that the engine would get additional features and would not break when new things appear.

[brosis]

I agree with your description. My problem is, that I don't see how you'd get a large enough batch of people that'd collect money and pay for it. You'd need to have a very interesting/original piece of software. Something 'average' (for example if something has been done already a few times and is available) won't do. Which is bad for me, since I lack the creativity to come up with something that hasn't be done already.

Also I still don't like the idea that someone is able to make money with a complete program I wrote. (if someone is using some source code from me, that's fine by me.) In my eyes the GPL is all about rights of the 'customer' aka the user, the developer has nearly no rights and that's what I'm not comfortable about.

Well, if you write non-original software, how do you want to market it even with proprietary approach? That won't work. If you lack creativity, cultivate it. If you don't want to cultivate it, join a team that already has it : )

Regarding second part of your question, its overall very complex thing.
Restricting rebranding will restrict forking - essential part of the license, if project gets stuck or unfit.
Restricting commercial re-distribution, that means a fork may not take money for media or for distribution ways, may prevent "rebranding rip-offs", but is seen as anti-opensource (I don't know why, really). But one thing for sure, trying to close something in order to regain control is absolutely bad idea. See DD-WRT case.