proprietary != commercial

Although I think prorprietary is more correct than commercial, still somtimes we do not put open source software directly into Ubuntu, e.g. libdvdcss. So why not just call it "third party"? We need to classify them this way simply because it does not come with ubuntu, right?

The multiverse component is part of the official ubuntu channel.

It is very likely that third party apps, that will be included in the gnome-app-install application data pool, are of a propertary nature, e.g. Skype.

Apps that are part of multiverse:

acidrip.desktop
acroread.desktop
AdobeReader.desktop
avidemux.desktop
babytrans.desktop
dosemu.desktop
dosemu.desktop.moved
gsnes9x.desktop
gtkpod.desktop
gtkpod.desktop~
ia32-sun-java5-java.desktop
ia32-sun-java5-javaws.desktop
ida.desktop
java1.4.desktop
javaws1.4.desktop
kbedic.desktop
kxmame.desktop
kxmame.desktop.moved
maelstrom.desktop
mplayer.desktop
mplayer.desktop~
qdvdauthor.desktop
realplayer.desktop
soundkonverter.desktop
soundkonverter.desktop.moved
squeak.desktop
stars.desktop
sun-java5-java.desktop
sun-java5-javaws.desktop
unicorn.desktop

"restricted" could be an alternative. this would include legal, use and distributing restrictions.

IMHO, "restricted" is a bad alternative, because there's now a "restricted" component in the Ubuntu archive, with a totally different meaning (in "restricted" lives nvidia-glx and others).

restricted does not mean something different. we include restricted and propertary software in this component. the nvidia-glx stuff is non free.

Mmm... but "restricted" in the "restricted" repository means "restricted support", AFAIK. I think "multiverse" is not supported at all.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the two meanings are different in essence.

restricted in use, distribution and improving because of the licence. you cannot change the source or provide a patch. therefor you depend on the good will of upstream => not completely supportable.

free => non-free
main => restricted
universe => multiverse

universe/multiverse are not fully supported, too.

I agree with Sebastian. I was just about to take it up with mvo, the author of gnome-app-install, when he pointed me to this bug.

Calling propierary software 'commercial software' adds confusion to new users of free software, and it *is* wrong. It goes against the Ubuntu code of conduct and the Ubuntu manifesto.

I will even go as far to say that I'm offended by that wording, and I beg you to change it.

I agree that one should change it. Neither Mplayer nor gtkpod is commercial or proprietary.

I would vote for third-party even though this is not quite correct. Proprietary is my second choice.

However, I would add a "What's this" Popup next to it, so people know that it contains proprietary, commercial and maybe even illegal software.

http://www.ubuntu.com/support/paid is titled "Commercial Support". So using "commercial" here is inconsistent with the wording of the web site. Maybe "Legally Restricted Software" would be a better way to put it.

I would still vote for "Show restricted applications". Legally restricted would be too long as label for the checkbox.

Is there any explanation from the developer why the string was changed to "commercial"? Shouldn't it be clear to most of us that it's false to claim so? Was it some last-minute attempt to make it more "understandable" for the common folks, with the expense of making the myth about oss being non-commercial even more stronger.

I think that even "Show closed-source applications" could be okay, but maybe proprietary is better.

This might be paranoia, but I wonder if it has anything to do with "hiding" the fact that certain apps are full blown proprietary :)

On 7/10/06, Cyclops <rms@1407.org> wrote:
> This might be paranoia, but I wonder if it has anything to do with
> "hiding" the fact that certain apps are full blown proprietary :)

What is there to hide in the first place? Gnome-App-Install is
developed openly and the source is available for download. This is
merely an issue of words used in for the actual string and we did
consider it before releasing.

--
Jerome Gotangco
<email address hidden>
Mobile: +639196555242
GPG: 0x9E379FC6

I reviewed the interface and replaced all checkboxes by a combobox.

* What is there to hide in the first place?
Truth. When you campaign in favour of the confusion commercial/proprietary you help those who lie saying it's impossible to make successful business with Free Software.

* Gnome-App-Install is developed openly and the source is available for download.
What does this has to do with the issue? Since it's Free Software people caught it red-handed and registered the bug. You're making our life harder by saying to people that Free Software isn't something you can have a business with.

* This is merely an issue of words used in for the actual string and we did consider it before releasing.
"merely an issue of words"? "considered"? Did you consider you're making your own (judging by your email) business harder? Or was it considered better to avoid "offending" certain partnerships that where boiling by then?

Since you don't know us very well, I won't regard your last comment as an insult. I don't think that anybody needs to tell Jerome what free software is. Furthermore why did you reply at all? The bug is fixed.

The change was done quite late in the dapper release circle and there was not enough time to react accordingly.

It wasn't meant as an insult, but it is false that the bug is corrected, I still see:

[ ] Show commercial applications

It is fixed in edgy.

It's an improvement but also an irrelevant fact.

This is not a feature enhancement, it's a _bug_. So this isn't just for dapper+N but for dapper as well.

Please request for a backport fix to Dapper.

Thanks,

Jerome

@Cyclops:
Watch you language please. You should sign the code of conduct.

@Sebastian:
? Please don't use the CoC as an abuse system.

Please stop the noise in the bug list now. If this is still an issue, please open a backport fix to Dapper. I hope this would be the last for this bug entry.

Thank You.

Jerome

Perhaps not. I am thinkinh aoubt reopening it, since the final decision of the wording hasn't been made yet.

So far:

proprietary -> should we use a word most people cannot even pronounce correctly?

non-free -> Free vs free confusion

commercial -> wrong

restricted (with explaination restricted by copyright or legal issues) -> 18a in American English (violence, sex...)

We will need to have mvo's opinion on this as well and probably
escalate it to TB soon,

--
Jerome Gotangco
<email address hidden>
Mobile: +639196555242
GPG: 0x9E379FC6

Right. Any volunteers? :) I will create a wiki page for this.

How about: Reduced Freedom?

If you decide to go the wiki way, please give me the link you chose and I'll see what I can do to help.

I do think the choice of terminology here is very important, both to ensure that we convey the correct message (there really IS a difference between commercial and proprietary software, as the bug reporter points out) and to ensure that people genuinely understand what's going on.

The current spec at https://launchpad.net/distros/ubuntu/+spec/enabling-additional-components talks about "restricted-use" software, which IMO is too much of an Ubuntu-ism (we call the repo of hardware-enablement stuff that we support and might install by default "restricted"). I don't have any concrete proposals, but I do think we should work hard to make this correct.

That said, I don't think we should "special-case" restricted. It's an Ubuntu policy choice to make restricted part of the base distro. We should provide a mechanism *on install* to avoid these proprietary bits, but I don't tihnk we have to continue to provide a filter for those packages in every aspect of the UI. I think it's reasonable to have only *two* checkboxes, which allow the user to turn on the display of (a) unsupported software, and (b) proprietary software. Leaving both unchecked would give you the default position (including restricted). Checking "show unsupported" would give you universe. Checking "show proprietary software" would give you commercial, and checking them both would give you multiverse as well.

There are two objections against using only two checkbuttons: At first the user doesn't know what is shown if none is checked. Secondly multiverse is quite hard to discover since there is no visual hint in the user interface that enabling both checkbuttons has got a synergy effect.

I also think that we should focus on gnome-app-install only.

Adding a "licence filter" to synaptic would affect the whole workflow. So I don't think that it is worth the effort. Furthermore synapitc is (should be) used by advanced users only. So they hopefully know what to do, if they don't want to see proprietary apps. Additionally the third party apps don't appear in synaptic at all.

The current gnome-app-install design makes use of a combobox instead of the checkbuttons. The "show" combobox gives the user an information about which applications are currently shown. Furthermore I think that we only have got three different user bases: the ones who really depend on the support, the freedom lovers and at least the perhaps biggest group of users who only care about functionality and not about licence stuff. So the following options are provided by the combobox:

Show only main applications
Show only OpenSource applications
Show all available applications

As you can see, this way we could even avoid the term commercial/proprietary at all.

At the moment there is still a "Show only third party applications" and "Show only non-free applications" option. But I would like to skip both of them to make the user interface cleaner.

Finally I added some small emblems to the application description, so that the user can identify the nature of the package easily.

All options of the combobox can have a tooltip.

The emblems also have got a tooltip (the cursor is not visible in the screen shot)

Hi, this bug is still listed "New" for Dapper, and I doubt the newer g-a-i will ever make it into Dapper. Since there's a newer LTS release just around the corner, wouldn't it just be best to close this bug and move on?

Thanks for all the comments. The stable release update policy does not cover this case and it would also break the translations. From edgy on the problem is fixed.

Cheers,
 Michael