I have been watching the evolution of the Ubuntu Software Center for quite a while now. I had doubts about its interface and its speed, but I liked the fact that it offered an easy, down-to-earth interface that allowed users to install software easily. However, I have to say that the way the Ubuntu Software Center has evolved is worrying me -- a lot. I am not against the idea of selling software. What I am against, is confusing proprietary software with non-proprietary software, The Ubuntu Software Center seems to be doing just that.
[ Editor's Note: The submission appears to have come directly from the author of the original article. ]
Original Submission
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Ubuntu Software Center is Mixing Proprietary and Free Software in a Dangerous Way
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 49 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(Score: 2, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 08 2015, @03:29AM
It doesn't matter what happens after the Ubuntu system has booted if it doesn't even boot at all thanks to some problem with systemd.
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Monday June 08 2015, @02:44PM
Funny you should mention this, I'm trying to resolve a problem on an older laptop with some flaky hardware and systemd is making it exceedingly difficult. Part of it is inexperience, and part is systemd. Seriously, what the fuck were people thinking?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Gravis on Monday June 08 2015, @03:40AM
this is not about people being confused about software licenses, this is about libre software being put in direct competition with proprietary software. i'm all about libre software but sometimes libre software doesn't measure up to the capabilities or design of proprietary software. if this was really about "but i dont want any proprietary software" then you should just remove the non-free/restricted sections from you list of repositories. however, what this really is about is "but i dont want anyone to use proprietary software" which is a misstep because that does just what you are railing against, taking choices away from the user.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 08 2015, @03:49AM
The actually-taking-away-freedom-but-pretending-we're-granting-freedom tactic isn't new. It's what the GPL does. It takes away the ability to use and redistribute the software freely, by forcing modifications to be shared if binaries are distributed. This takes away the freedom to make and distribute closed-source modifications.
Thankfully, there are numerous other open source licenses out there, like the BSD and MIT licenses, that maximize freedom for everyone. When written out, they're typically a small fraction of the length of the GPL, and don't impose tyrannical restrictions like the GPL does. These licenses that promote real freedom tend to be short and succinct; the licenses that take away freedom tend to go on and on.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by deimios on Monday June 08 2015, @04:50AM
If complete freedom includes the ability to take away said freedom then yes MIT/BSD licensing is right up that alley.
The GPL is about ensuring that you give others the same freedom that you received. In the strict sense that is a restriction and it lowers the overall freedom provided. However in the long run I'd argue it provides freedom to more people than the MIT/BSD type of licensing.
Just think about it this way: true freedom is anarchy, yet not many places exist where anarchy is the form of government (or lack thereof).
(Score: 2) by TLA on Monday June 08 2015, @06:32AM
does either the GPL or the BSD licence specify that derivative code has to go out on the same terms, or do one or both of them allow you to distribute derivative code on a different licence?
Example:
I take a piece of GPL code, modify it and distribute the modified code under the BSD licence, is this allowed by the GPL?
Alternatively, can I take BSD code, modify it and distribute the modified code under GPL?
Excuse me, I think I need to reboot my horse. - NCommander
(Score: 5, Informative) by hemocyanin on Monday June 08 2015, @07:31AM
No.
You can take a piece of MIT/BSD software, use it in your project, and GPL the combination -- for that matter, you could even decide to go closed source with the MIT/BSD stuff you cribbed, all you have to do is indicate that you used some BSD/MIT code, acknowledge who you got it from, and reference the license (you could even just close source MIT/BSD software, make no changes, and sell it, though that seems sort of pointless).
However, you can't go the other way and relicense GPL software under an MIT/BSD style license, because the MIT/BSD licenses allow you to do things with the software (e.g. make it proprietary closed source) that the GPL forbids. If you could do this with GPL software, it would provide a mechanism to defeat the entire purpose of the GPL, which is to prevent publicly released software based on other GPL software from being made secret.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Monday June 08 2015, @06:39PM
because the MIT/BSD licenses allow you to do things with the software (e.g. make it proprietary closed source) that the GPL forbids.
Technical point, the GPL doesn't forbid anything. Neither does the BSD or MIT licenses. They simply allow differing amounts of stuff.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday June 08 2015, @07:36AM
Suggestion: "anarchy is the form of governance" - shorter and sounds less awkward.
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 08 2015, @05:17AM
Using GPL
is encroaching on our rights
to encroach on yours
(Score: 5, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Monday June 08 2015, @07:45AM
Correction:
Using GPL
is limiting your right to close source free software,
to protect everyone's rights.
I take issue with "encroach" because if an author wants to release software under the GPL, that is wholly his or her right to do so. The GPL doesn't encroach on that author's rights in any way -- the author embraced the terms of the license but could have chosen any other license or even made a custom license for the software. As an affirmative choice then, the GPL can in no way be an encroachment.
As for all the not-original-authors who want to copy the work, they have total freedom to ignore the GPL'ed software and use something else, or write their own from scratch, but to look a gift horse in the mouth like that is really dismissive of the original author's intentions. If you don't like those intentions you have total freedom to not use the software and thus there is no encroachment on your rights either.
Last, I understand that your rights to modify and close source some piece of software is limited by the GPL, but it's more than a little presumptuous to think you should have any rights you want over someone else's work.
(Score: 3, Informative) by urza9814 on Monday June 08 2015, @07:31PM
Furthermore, in many jurisdictions the default copyright automatically granted upon writing the code is far more restrictive than the GPL. The GPL restores rights that are taken away by copyright. It doesn't restore *all* those rights, but it is still copyright laws that are limiting the rights, not the GPL.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 08 2015, @02:08PM
Forcing modifications to be shared under a license that allows others to reshare them doesn't restrict your freedom to redistribute the content.
While the GPL does require source code to be released, other than that it should be noted that freedom doesn't come from government. Your desire to take someone else's hard work, modify it slightly in a way that requires minimal effort, and redistribute it under a restricted license is typical of IP defenders. IP defenders are typically hypocrites, after all Hollywood was built on piracy. However what you want requires government and so is not freedom. Freedom is the absence of IP law altogether. What you want is a tyrannical government that enforces laws to your economical benefit at the expense of everyone else. What you want is not to be confused with freedom.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by TheRaven on Monday June 08 2015, @08:08AM
It seems more that it's about being able to make an informed decision. If I use a piece of open source software that is a bit rough around the edges, then I'm suffering pain now, but with the potential benefit of being able to fix it if it matters that much to me. If I use a piece of proprietary software that's better, then that's less immediate pain, but there are more likely to be file format lock-in problems later and, if it's free then I want to know what their revenue source is (is it selling my data to third parties? Is it downloading ads that provide a potential vector for attackers?).
Sometimes I'll choose to use proprietary software, but I want to make an informed choice and I want to know at install time what the license is. On my phone, I'll use F-Droid to find things first, and then fall back to either the Amazon or Google store if I don't find anything. In F-Droid, I know exactly what the open source license is, and if it's not in F-Droid then I know that it's proprietary. For some things, like my bank's app, there's no open source alternative (and not yet a model for developing one). For other things, I want to be able to at least try the open source version first.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Monday June 08 2015, @07:00PM
The software *could* be in separate repositories. That's the traditional solution for Debian descendant systems. If it is, then I don't see the problem. If it isn't...that's unreasonably bad.
Separate repositories allows one to decide which categories of software one will install. Even if you have all the repositories installed, you can, at least with apt-get, synaptic, etc., decide at install time which repositories you will allow to be used AT THIS TIME.
OTOH, I haven't used Ubuntu recently. Perhaps their "Ubuntu Software Center" program doesn't allow one to make this decision...or even to know that one is making it.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 08 2015, @03:46AM
I rather liked Ubuntu until their decisions about Unity. When they decided to go with a Metro desktop, it was clear to me that Ubuntu wasn't going in a direction that I wanted to go. Yeah, there were other things that bothered me about Canonical, but until Unity they were all little things.
Sorry to hear that they are blurring the line between gratis and libre. Some of the folks at the other end of the spectrum annoy me sometimes, but intentionally blurring the lines is just wrong. A person can easily find himself trapped into paying for a license to use something a year or two from now, because he has integrated a proprietary software into his workflow. Paying for software may not be all bad, but who decides the price at that time? Free today, and $20,000 per year five years from now? WTF?
I'm going to buy my defensive radar from Temu, just like Venezuela!
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday June 08 2015, @10:59AM
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Monday June 08 2015, @03:59AM
What's the problem? all non-free software could be flagged as such and then there can be an option to enable that bait software?
I can understand the tactic of not enabling a convenient path to install bait software to avoid such software corporations from getting a foothold in the ecosystem.
[Poettering kept outside] ;^)
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 08 2015, @04:26AM
First it spies on you https://fixubuntu.com/ [fixubuntu.com] and now it peddles proprietary software to you...
Fortunately there are other distros that show more respect for you.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 08 2015, @05:24AM
I love the disclaimer:
Disclaimer: In case you are either 1) a complete idiot; or 2) a lawyer; or 3) both, please be aware that this site is not affiliated with or approved by Canonical Limited. This site criticizes Canonical for certain privacy-invading features of Ubuntu and teaches users how to fix them. So, obviously, the site is not approved by Canonical. And our use of the trademarked term Ubuntu is plainly descriptive — it helps the public find this site and understand its message.
I'm going to buy my defensive radar from Temu, just like Venezuela!
(Score: 4, Informative) by Ryuugami on Monday June 08 2015, @07:19AM
Unfortunately, that disclaimer is not entirely a joke: they added it in response [techdirt.com] to getting a cease-and-desist letter from Canonical.
There is a silver lining, though.
If a shit storm's on the horizon, it's good to know far enough ahead you can at least bring along an umbrella. - D.Weber
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Monday June 08 2015, @06:29PM
Canonical, the company behind Ubuntu, apparently has decided to act like a trademark bully.
Ubuntu: a quality that includes the essential human virtues; compassion and humanity.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Monday June 08 2015, @06:01AM
The only Danger is the Kleenex Danger! If you put your code out there in a kinda "metrosexual, kinda opensource, downwith that, baby" way, guess what, you are free software and I will copy you until the sun comes up and there is nothing you can do but say "thanks for the memories". How often do we have to go down this path? WTF. is Micro&oft (and, truth be told, very soft) wants to claim paternity? Yeah, we are all up with that. To say they own the child? Whoa, harsh, man, like slavery harsh. So free software always wins, the way people always win, and democracy wins, because no matter how many lawyers they can hire, there is more of us than there is of them. Danger? Danger of real democracy breaking out? That has always been the real danger of code.
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by jasassin on Monday June 08 2015, @06:40AM
If I were to write a program in C under Linux using GCC would I be able to sell binaries and not give out the source?
jasassin@gmail.com GPG Key ID: 0xE6462C68A9A3DB5A
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 08 2015, @06:59AM
Yes. Just like thousands of games on Steam are doing right now, like Loki Games did 15 years ago.
Wait, why is it that all the examples I can find are games, and all I can come up with in the "non-games" section is the port of Word Perfect that existed for a short time a loooong time ago? You'd think Linux was a gaming OS.
(Score: 2) by TLA on Monday June 08 2015, @07:15AM
why would you go anywhere near that crapfest that is Steam?? Particularly with that malware magnet Source.
Excuse me, I think I need to reboot my horse. - NCommander
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 08 2015, @08:46AM
Every serious developer will use a better compiler.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 08 2015, @10:25AM
Lots of serious developers use GCC. How is it that you've determined that there are no "serious" developers who use it?
(Score: 1, Disagree) by TLA on Monday June 08 2015, @06:59AM
No [gnu.org]. Is the short answer. You must distribute the source whether or not you also distribute the binary.
Excuse me, I think I need to reboot my horse. - NCommander
(Score: 2) by jasassin on Monday June 08 2015, @08:04AM
I think we are having a failure to communicate. I am asking if I write my own hello world program in C with whatever new idea also, and compile it under Linux using GCC can I sell the binary and not give out the source?
jasassin@gmail.com GPG Key ID: 0xE6462C68A9A3DB5A
(Score: 2) by TLA on Monday June 08 2015, @12:59PM
my bad, it was Dark O'Clock and I was misreading due exhaustion.
Excuse me, I think I need to reboot my horse. - NCommander
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Monday June 08 2015, @08:11AM
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Monday June 08 2015, @08:17AM
Well first, C is just a language so it's use neither here nor there with respect to the GPL. Your own C code can be closed, open, or whatever you choose.
As for GCC, it's not quite so cut and dried as you make it sound: http://www.sitepoint.com/public-license-explained/ [sitepoint.com] (nice link from the comments here: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2080588/can-i-legally-incorporate-gpl-software-in-a-proprietary-closed-source-web-app [stackoverflow.com] ) The discussion here is good too: https://lwn.net/Articles/583622/ [lwn.net] You do have to be careful however, not to integrate GPL software into your program when using GCC (LGPL however solves the problem and does not invoke the GPL).
Finally, you only have to release the source IF you distribute the code. If you make some changes to GPL'ed software and never distribute that software, you can keep those changes to yourself for all eternity.
Going back to GCC, imagine you wrote a novel using emacs -- do you really think that would mean you have to release the book free because of emacs? How about movie special effects done in Blender? It's GPL'ed -- did we all get free Spiderman-2 tickets?
(Score: 1) by Shimitar on Monday June 08 2015, @08:26AM
The Short Answer: YES
The Not So Short Answer:
Let's not get confused. The GPL license applies to software you either include in your own or modify, it does not apply to by-products of it's usage. So, yes, you can use the GCC compiler (which is GPLv3) to produce proprietary, closed-source software you want to sell or monetize in any way you want.
What you CANNOT do is modify GCC and sell it without providing your modification...
What you CANNOT do is link GPL-only libraries to your non-GPL sources...
So, again, yes you can, provided you don't link any pure GPL library to it, which is not so hard since almost all the common used libraries on linux are LGPL, BSD or other non so strictly licensed. Yes, including glibc which is LGPL.
GPL is aboud freedom and make sure that freedom cannot be removed at any point in time, just that.
Think of it, it would be quite useless to have a GIMP which forces you to release ANY photo or draw you make as creative-commons or GPL, right? Likewhise, think a Calligra/KOffice word which forces you to release as GPL any book or article you write...
Why should it be different for compiler output?
Coding is an art. No, java is not coding. Yes, i am biased, i know, sorry if this bothers you.
(Score: 2) by jasassin on Monday June 08 2015, @10:44AM
I am not a lawyer and they have ways to twist these things. I do not know the answer to your question, although thank you for your response.
jasassin@gmail.com GPG Key ID: 0xE6462C68A9A3DB5A
(Score: 2) by jasassin on Monday June 08 2015, @10:48AM
How is this flaimbait? Nice modding.
jasassin@gmail.com GPG Key ID: 0xE6462C68A9A3DB5A
(Score: 3, Informative) by turgid on Monday June 08 2015, @07:40PM
Sorry I couldn't reply earlier, so I modded it flamebait, because I believe that's what it truly is. It's an impertinent question and disingenuous. In recent months and years these discussion forums seem to have been over-run by anti-GPL FUD and pro-BSD platitudes. Call it a conspiracy theory, but it might be that Apple, Microsoft, Google, Oracle and friends and having a paid troll/astroturfing campaign. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if the Putinbots were in on it too.
This sort of question smacks of willful ignorance, and it was discussed to death 20 years ago when Linux became very popular all of a sudden. You'd think with the popularity of FOSS these days most people would have a basic understanding.
The FSF's web site, wikipedia and the OSI explain this clearly, at length and unambiguously.
Looking further up this discussion there are all sorts of idiotic questions about licenses that are just plain insulting, like, "If I make modifications to a project under the GPL and redistribute it, can I redistribute it under a different licence?" Hell no, it's right there in the GPL, and you are supposed to state that in a comment block at the top of your source files.
Let me give you an example (of the LGPL, the one that lets you write a Free library to be used by Closed applications by dynamic linking) from one of my own sources (the name has been changed to prevent embarrassment):
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2) by jasassin on Monday June 08 2015, @10:16PM
I'm sorry also. Sorry I asked the question and got treated like an asshole. No I'm not sorry. Fuck you.
jasassin@gmail.com GPG Key ID: 0xE6462C68A9A3DB5A
(Score: 2) by turgid on Monday June 08 2015, @10:53PM
Sorry if I offended you. I am very frustrated with the way things are going.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2) by jasassin on Tuesday June 09 2015, @12:08AM
I accept your apology. I am sorry if if I offended you, and also for my ignorance.
jasassin@gmail.com GPG Key ID: 0xE6462C68A9A3DB5A
(Score: 1) by turgid on Tuesday June 09 2015, @08:08PM
Don't be sorry for your ignorance. I just got very frustrated.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 09 2015, @09:02AM
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Monday June 08 2015, @07:18AM
Debian was the reason I used Ubuntu.
Slackware was the reason I used Debian.
For now Linux Mint is OK but there are times when I really want to use google for my search engine; not being able to set it in the browser gets on my nerves.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 08 2015, @08:21AM
so what was your reason for using Kuro5hin?
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Monday June 08 2015, @08:46PM
Filter error: Comment too short
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 08 2015, @03:01PM
Maybe not what you are looking for, but there is a plugin to help with that [techbrown.com].
(Score: 3, Funny) by mmcmonster on Monday June 08 2015, @03:52PM
Google isn't the default search engine on Linux Mint, but it's easy to change the search engine. :-)
So easy that I forgot how I did it. :-(
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday June 08 2015, @05:54PM
It tells you how. on the page about search engines, as it also explains to you why it isn't there by default.
It's about 4 clicks...
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Monday June 08 2015, @06:27PM
Do you remember the olden days when you visited http://www.google.com [google.com] and typed in there - before you had searches direct from your browser?