[maemo-developers] Identifying free/non-free apps (was Re: ... and QA of closed source applications?)

[From: Quim Gil]

ext Jeremiah Foster wrote:
> On May 6, 2009, at 17:47, Quim Gil wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>>
>> ext Attila Csipa wrote:
>>
>>> To make things worse, the
>>> application manager does not display the repository, much less the  
>>> component
>>> an application belongs to.
>> Indeed, more information could be probably put in the "Application
>> details" --> "Summary e.g. the repository branch and there you could  
>> see
>> whether it's free or non-free. Do you mind filing an enhancement  
>> request?
> 
> I am happy to do this if you don't want to Attila.

Fine, but I please set your work priorities right. Only in the April
sprint you have 8 committed tasks, and the QA process (open & closed) is
still more relevant that being totally clear with end users about the
license of the software they install.

> Then we really ought to specify two domains, Nokia and Community.  

Done?

> Inside the Community domain we can specify whether an app is closed or  
> open source. This way there is no misunderstanding, everything in the  
> repos is free as in beer just some things are open source and some  
> things are not.

Maemo is doing this already through the Debian traditional way of
defining free/non-free, or am I missing something?


> However we want to implement that is fine, but I think  
> the free / non-free distinction and its clumping together in the AM  
> has to change, its just too confusing.

Fine, but one thing are repository structures used by developers and
tools, and another thing are localization strings for end users. Let's
not mix them, please.

> 
> May I submit for your critique:
> 
> /repository.maemo.org/extras/name/open/
> /repository.maemo.org/extras/name/open/testing/
> /repository.maemo.org/extras/name/open/new/
> 
> /repository.maemo.org/extras/name/closed/
> /repository.maemo.org/extras/name/closed/testing
> /repository.maemo.org/extras/name/closed/new/

open? "free" is the standard and what is currently used. Why change.
closed? "non-free" is the standard and what is currently used. Why change.
new? This actually sounds fresh and appealing to end users. "devel" is
what is currently used and defines the target and quality quite well.
Why change.

-- 
Quim Gil
open source advocate
Maemo Software @ Nokia