Software UltraEdit whose price is free is asking for $39.95 + taxes

I don't see that ..
In french : "Ubuntu Software Center" is "Logithèque Ubuntu"

And i follow on the same way :

  Applications -> Logithèque Ubuntu :: 'Obtenir des logiciels libres' -> 'Programmation' -> 'UltraEdit'

just before button install, i see :

"...
Licence : Inconnu(e)
Prix : Gratuit

[ Installer ]

Version : 1.1.0.0-2 (uex)
...
"

I install it .. and at first launch i see :
http://blinckers.dnsalias.net/public/images/Free_Software_Is_ShareWare.png

*OMG* o_O

i test on second machine and : http://blinckers.dnsalias.net/public/images/Free_Software_Is_ShareWare_2.png

no comment :\

Sources.list on the first machine : http://pastebin.com/E5ebLLNw
and second machine : http://pastebin.com/zpU0asbj

It would be more correct to view:
"Price: Trial Version"

I'm affected with this one too ...

... well for short; while playing around with JASSPA MicroEmacs[1], in fact, i was searching for an old version of microemacs (ue312, for those ho remember, way back to the late 90').

So i looked in ubuntu's cache for some "ue" occurrences and got this reference :

"uex - Text, HTML, HEX, PHP, Perl, Java and JavaScript editor"

... He ! FINE ! ... µe got extended ... apt-get install ... (µEmacs ... - ..."x-tended" ...).

!_*BIG*_! ... ... ... :SHOCK: !!!

not only was the result unexpected, (i expected _µ_E, or at least FREE software "... in relation with each other ...."[2]), but even worse, i got confronted for the first time - playing around with linux since S.u.S.E 5, note the lower "u" ("und" (DE/German)) [3] - to the *greatest* GARBAGE in software history :

NAG's !?! !

... witch, in my mind contradict in _*ANY POSSIBLE*_ way with philosophy in _*GENERAL*_ (and *NOT* only with "ubuntu's one")

It should be made _*CLEAR*_ that _*ANY*_ _*shareware*_ repo, in some/(any ?) debian - "a like" distro _*would*_ have A MAJOR impact !

Would Ubuntu be THAT ONE ? ... Please, NO !

OK, on the other side, it is my and solely fault ... i trusted Canonical enough to enable it's "partner" repos (and by the way, "restricted" was enabled too ... and still (as on my ubuntu on 12.04.10) ...) but how long for this distro ? |{ .

In fact, i didn't _really_ check where the "source" was ... "partner"/"restricted" ... don't really matter ... a single apt-cache check got me to "pool/partner/u/...." and this is enough, for me, to say :

 NO !

I switched from S.u.S.E (again ;) LOWER "u") to Ubuntu some years ago and even if i agree that "partnership" *IS* "one" - of many - key to durable success (as long as, at least, 2 ... can cooperate (corporate ? ... oops ... tell me that im wrong, PLEASE !) );

personally, i REJECT the fact that THIS success could be done on my needs.
Maybe i could have get another vision of that _*GARBAGE*_ on gnu/linux within a different view, but the /damage/ _*IS DONE*_ !

As conclusion,
i honestly, truly and "whateverly*, ...really..., have to *sincerely* thanks Canonical for this !

As i, in the the future, gonna _keep_ my critical eye on computing in every sense ...

/.

[1] http://www.jasspa.com/
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu_%28philosophy%29
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SUSE_Linux_distributions (or take a "glook" about S.u.S.E before novell ...)

poushkin, please avoid making comments that don't help fix the bug. Thanks.

This seems to have been a miscommunication between the Partner repository maintainers and the Ubuntu Software Center developers. Since we don't yet have any infrastructure to deal with prices in Ubuntu Software Center, I'm not sure what we can do about it, except maybe include a hacky hack to special-case UltraEdit.

In lucid we will not show information about the freeness of the software in partner because we don't know the status. We should make sure that the description is clear. I subscribe Brian Thomason

This bug was fixed in the package software-center - 2.0

---------------
software-center (2.0) lucid; urgency=low

  [ Michael Vogt ]
  * softwarecenter/view/channelpane.py:
    - fix crash when gdk window is not (yet) available (LP: #560320)
  * softwarecenter/view/appdetailsview.py,
    softwarecenter/distro/__init__.py,
    softwarecenter/distro/Ubuntu.py:
    - do not show "Free" for packages from the partner repository, we
      don't know the status of the freeness there (LP: #552830)
  * merged lp:~vish.../software-center/avoidmonochromeicon, many thanks
  * re-enable action button if confirm dialog got canceled (LP: #562810)
  * merged lp:~zkrynicki/software-center/improve-html, many thanks
    (final bits for LP: #455320), add simple test

  [ Matthew McGowan ]
  * softwarecenter/view/availablepane.py:
    - ensure we have a model before sending changed signal (LP: #560967)
  * softwarecenter/view/dialogs.py:
    - ensure image size does not grow out of proportion (LP: #560021)
  * softwarecenter/view/appview.py:
    - make rows more dynamic (LP: #557798)
  * softwarecenter/view/widgets/pathbar_gtk_atk.py:
    - fix resizing bugs in style-set events

  [ Gary Lasker ]
  * softwarecenter/view/navhistory.py:
    - clear forward navigation history items from the
      stack on an direct navigation, fixes regression
      (LP: #563128)
  * softwarecenter/view/channelpane.py:
    - ensure we have a model before sending app-list-changed
      signal (LP: #560716)
 -- Michael Vogt <email address hidden> Thu, 15 Apr 2010 01:25:12 +0200

@ Matthew Paul Thomas

well, sorry for the last one, was clearly too long and a bit off-topic here.

But i was nearly angry.

I was expecting free software (ue/micro-emacs) and had to face a _shareware_
 nag (*HU !*).

About "hacky hack" and infrastructures, i see two (well proof) solutions,

 1. Repos (pool/shareware here)
 2. naming convention (avoiding miss interpretation)

I got a nag and didn't like it !

Don't get me wrong, even if im against "shareware" (witch in fact, are mostly
 "time-restricted-ware", having little in common with sharing (terminological))
  i can consider "the need" of such a repos.

Canonical (with Ubuntu) has clearly done (and still do) a HUGE job in spreading
 FREE software and sources, but i also think that the time has come for Ubuntu
 to consider a way to track freedom and commerce ... in separated ways.

Sincerly.

In Synaptic i view the uex package and nothing about license or price.

I think the description or some place will must explicit put this information.

More, I think the shareware software must go out ubuntu repositories. Open software or free, or payment, yes, they are clear, but shareware not.

I have Ubuntu 10.04 Lucid Lynx.

This bug hasn't been fixed. In fully up-to-date Ubuntu 10.10, Ubuntu Software Center describes UltraEdit as "Free" ... "License == unknown". This is still not true as explained earlier here.

The bug hasn't been fixed in 11.04 either.

Setting back to confirmed.

Right, I don't have permission, apologies.

I don't think this warrants a new bug but please tell me if I should report one.

This is still an open issue. The program is still listed as "free" with an "unknown" license, giving false information to users. I have uninstalled the program since the software partner is using a bait and switch. The software partner should correct this immediately or it should be removed from the software center until they can correctly place it in the correct category (For Purchase) and the correct license (shareware/trial).

For what it's worth, the vendor is not using a bait and switch. This application was published in the Partner reop before we had the ability for For Purchase apps. The Partner repo does not support the proper specification of a license. We are looking into moving it into the For Purchase section now though.

Reopening pending an upcoming decision about this. As Brian and others have mentioned, now that we have the For Purchase section it makes sense to move UltraEdit into that section with a $0 price and labeled clearly as trialware.

The bug is still not fixed

I verified that this is no longer an issue in Ubuntu Precise Beta 2 as UltraEdit appears to no longer be available in the repositories (search in Software Center no longer returns it). I will set the status as invalid.

Thanks!

It's still offered as free!!!!

If Linux CD is free, I would like to get one. Please email me on how to get it.

Thanks

An