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

[From: Jeremiah C. Foster]

On May 7, 2009, at 12:17 PM, Quim Gil wrote:

>
>
> 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.

Yes, I will keep this in mind. I just meant I was willing to file an  
enhancement request, something that might take a couple minutes, not  
do the determination of free / non-free.

>
>> 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.

Because, as you said yourself, non-free sounds like it costs money.  
The free / non-free distinction is confusing.

Jeremiah