Ubuntu Software Center and 3rd party paid software

[qualtch]

Hello all!

Ubuntu Software Center is developing in an astonishing speed and the present version of it in Ubuntu 10.04 seems pretty handy and nice to use. But I was thinking of a small idea: Would it be clever to implement an actual Software Store for non-free 3rd party applications to the USC?

It could possibly work e.g. having two options on the left sidebar; one link for open source software and one for non-free software. We already have Ubuntu Music Store in 10.04, so why not create our own version of App Store?

In my opinion, this way developers and companies would get more interested in developing their non-free, chargeable software for Ubuntu, since there would be a ready-to-use distribution channel and a notable amount of potential customers.

[jrothwell97]

Paid non-free software, I believe, is a target for Maverick, and it should definitely be there and functioning well by Maverick+1.

[Khakilang]

I think that's a good idea. For people who need non-free software and a way to pay for the software. It is a good for Ubuntu to get revenue from the advertisement.

[Dayofswords]

i like it

but RMS would go insane
http://dayofswords.com/anyfile/uf/rms-paid-nonfree.jpg

he will defiantly not like this

[zekopeko]

i like it

but RMS would go insane
<snip>

he will defiantly not like this

Who cares?

[Dayofswords]

Who cares?

no one really, but he'd defiantly make a fuss :P

[Shpongle]

while its a good idea , I feel that the free software would suffer, and the source for the paid software would be closed , so it is effectively encouraging people not to write open source as there would be a cash incentive (I know money isn't everything). I mean if its a photoshop or itunes for linux or proprietary games I can see the point. One of the benefits of linux is the free software in both meanings. I think a donation option in the software center would be better

just my take on it

[jrothwell97]

but RMS would go insane
http://dayofswords.com/anyfile/uf/rms-paid-nonfree.jpg

You forgot that he'd call Mark Shuttleworth evil corporatist traitor, and then demand people switch to gNewSense. ;)

[NCLI]

while its a good idea , I feel that the free software would suffer, and the source for the paid software would be closed , so it is effectively encouraging people not to write open source as there would be a cash incentive (I know money isn't everything). I mean if its a photoshop or itunes for linux or proprietary games I can see the point. One of the benefits of linux is the free software in both meanings. I think a donation option in the software center would be better

just my take on it

No one is saying that they have to be closed-source to be sold, though I agree it's the most likely model.

Anyway, this will be implemented in 10.10.

[meho_r]

Who cares?

I do :P

[qualtch]

Paid non-free software, I believe, is a target for Maverick, and it should definitely be there and functioning well by Maverick+1.

Thank you for your answer. It's gonna be interesting to see how it goes, and more importantly: how the developer communities react to this. IMHO open-source developers don't need to be afraid of this change, as there is always people who use open-source software, and some of them use only open-source! :)

[Mr. Picklesworth]

while its a good idea , I feel that the free software would suffer, and the source for the paid software would be closed , so it is effectively encouraging people not to write open source as there would be a cash incentive (I know money isn't everything). I mean if its a photoshop or itunes for linux or proprietary games I can see the point. One of the benefits of linux is the free software in both meanings. I think a donation option in the software center would be better

just my take on it

There already is a cash incentive to write closed source software (or even free software) with a price tag. It just wasn't going to be written for Ubuntu.

[Dr. C]

There already is a cash incentive to write closed source software (or even free software) with a price tag. It just wasn't going to be written for Ubuntu.

This assumes that the development cost of non free and free software is the same, but in fact the development cost of free software is in most cases lower by many orders of magnitude. Consider the millions of lines of GPL'd code that can be licensed at no cost provided the resulting application is also released under the GPL.

[sudoer541]

i like it

but RMS would go insane
http://dayofswords.com/anyfile/uf/rms-paid-nonfree.jpg

he will defiantly not like this


He has no right to tell me what software I should use!!!
I choose both open and closed software.
We shall see.

[Roasted]

I can see this being a good thing if it's gone about properly. For example, getting games and whatnot through the software center would be genius. However, I can see this going south extremely fast.

Ubuntu is open source, and the majority of the common programs for Ubuntu shall remain so - otherwise it will ultimately eat away the pros of Ubuntu that it's worked so hard to accomplish.

On the flip side, look at Windows. Besides Windows itself, I think 99% of the software I use on Windows boxes already is open source and free. So at the same token, it may not be something *that* big to worry about. But at the same time, I want to see Ubuntu progress at a rate it is now, and if there turns into a massive software movement towards closed/paid software in USC, it could turn out bad.

I just think it has to be done in a very intelligent manner. If done so, it can be pulled off nicely.

[Dr. C]

He has no right to tell me what software I should use!!!
I choose both open and closed software.
We shall see.

RMS has a right to his opinion no more.

The real culprit here is Steve Jobs and Apple who not only does he think he has the right to tell people what they can run and not run on their iPhones and iPads but will send Apple's legal department after those who try to run unapproved software that does not pass Apple's censors.

I can run Microsoft Windows 7 in a virtual machine on top of gNewSense and RMS and the FSF will not try to stop me; conversely I can run gNewSense on top of Windows 7 and Microsoft will not try to stop me.

When it comes to censoring what kind of software one can run the culprits are not Richard Stallman or Steve Ballmer the real culprit is Steve Jobs.

The real threat to free software comes from those who choose to censor free software and not from running propriety applications on top of a free operating system.

[wilee-nilee]

http://blog.canonical.com/?p=37

[Dayofswords]

http://blog.canonical.com/?p=37

they have had that stiff for sell for a while, but only on the site, never within ubuntu

i like the concept, but i have a feeling if ubuntu gets big, there could be some trade commission issues, like, who gets gets on the buyable list...

[bruno9779]

How did a post on the USC become a bash-feast on richard Stallman?

He is nuts, but without his work and his vision, Linus Torvalds would not have had an OS to write a kernel for.

A lot of what we call "linux" had already been worked on from 1983 to 1991, when Linus wrote his kernel. Stallman was leading the way.

[madjr]

the Android model is best

tons of free software

but at the same time enough incentive to port games and some professional apps

whats not to like?

anyway, is rare for commercial software to be written exclusively for ubuntu, so what we'll prbably see is the porting of more pre-existing software.

[gashcr]

would be a good option to make accesible some interesting professional software, like bibble5 :D

[barney385]

I think it's a bad idea. I'm just tired of corporatist trying to squeeze money out of every facet of my life.

Don't ever let them in the door.

Period.

[Roasted]

I think it's a bad idea. I'm just tired of corporatist trying to squeeze money out of every facet of my life.

Don't ever let them in the door.

Period.

If the topic were about "We plan to diminish open source/free software from USC and begin incorporating paid applications." I could see more of an argument. But I can't possibly in my wildest imagination ever imagine Ubuntu without the complete vast majority of available software being anything except free/open source.

Like I said about my Windows boxes earlier, all I use on them is free/open source software. If that lifestyle can happen on Windows, why not on Ubuntu?

[alket]

There is nothing to worry about non-free software at USC, I think that there will be two categories and Free Software fans shouldn't be worried because they will still using Open Source programs by ignoring the second category. Everything "PLUS" is welcome because it will improve our options and marketshare.

[bruno9779]

There is nothing to worry about non-free software at USC, I think that there will be two categories and Free Software fans shouldn't be worried because they will still using Open Source programs by ignoring the second category. Everything "PLUS" is welcome because it will improve our options and marketshare.

You are right as long as it is a plus.

Get one key app on the paid-for-list and the whole concept of foss goes down the drain.

[meho_r]

There is nothing to worry about non-free software at USC, I think that there will be two categories and Free Software fans shouldn't be worried because they will still using Open Source programs by ignoring the second category. Everything "PLUS" is welcome because it will improve our options and marketshare.

Pursuing to be like or better than Windows/MacOSX and to get (larger) "marketshare" is what concerns me about some distros. It is definitely the wrong path. GNU and Linux were made out of love to freedom at the first place and polluting that (i.e. the principle) because of some "convenience" is not right. I can understand the need for some proprietary pieces like drivers for wireless cards and maybe graphic cards, because until usable open source versions are available, you probably have to use these. But I'm really not so sure about various other pieces of proprietary apps. I'm not sure Ubuntu would do good with this...

[Roasted]

Has it been announced that Ubuntu is OFFICIALLY doing this? If so, is there any word on what kind of applications are going to be in there?

We also have to remember Ubuntu isn't the only distro out there. The day Ubuntu begins pushing pay software hardcore is the day it literally will go down the drain. On top of that, being that open source software is developed for "Linux" and not "Ubuntu", I'm not sure how it would have any impact on Ubuntu to begin with.

If software is continually made for Linux, Ubuntu will receive it. Pay software being more easily available on Linux doesn't mean that open source software dies. There's an entire world beyond Ubuntu.

[PhilGil]

I'm not sure how Ubuntu offering proprietary software is going to change the Linux ecosystem, if at all. That's going to take several years to play out. Canonical isn't doing this just to monetize Ubuntu, but also because users have asked that proprietary apps be ported to Linux.

The only thing that would hack me off is if I had to click on the application icon and read the description to know whether the program was paid or free. I'm OK as long as it's clear on the main Software Center screen which apps are free and which are not.

[JamezQ]

The only thing that would hack me off is if I had to click on the application icon and read the description to know whether the program was paid or free. I'm OK as long as it's clear on the main Software Center screen which apps are free and which are not.

Certainly this ++

I want to see mark make some money. I don't see non-free software as evil.

[3rdalbum]

I think it's a bad idea. I'm just tired of corporatist trying to squeeze money out of every facet of my life.

Don't ever let them in the door.

Period.


sudo apt-get remove --purge software-center

[3rdalbum]

Anyone here used freeware on Windows lately? My father downloaded a program to convert videos for his iPhone; the program itself is full of ads.

If Ubuntu Software Center lets non-FLOSS developers make money by charging small amounts for their software, then that's MUCH better than using software that has ads in it.

[Roasted]

If I open USC and see all of my "old faithful" applications, along with (under the non-free/proprietary section) some drivers (free), games, professional grade applications, etc, we'll be in good shape.

The day I open USC and see Gimp and OpenOffice on sale for a 24 hour sale is when a SERIOUS problem will be had.

But again, I still think the vast majority of the software in USC will be open source. After all, Ubuntu is Linux, and OSS is often times made primarily for Linux. USC offering non-free software in Ubuntu alone doesn't effect the flow of open source applications all together.

[3rdalbum]

The day I open USC and see Gimp and OpenOffice on sale for a 24 hour sale is when a SERIOUS problem will be had.

Wasn't that what Linspire used to do? You had to buy a subscription to their repository in order to download software.

[art4med]

In studies of behavioral feedback (I'll defer to the casual references in the recent book, Sway (http://www.amazon.com/Sway-Irresistible-Pull-Irrational-Behavior/dp/0385530609/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1272179167&sr=8-1)), two centers of the human brain light up [as seen in PET brain scans (and thus, come to mind)] under competing conditions.
In other words, these two areas cannot both be functioning at the same time in a single individual brain:
1. The "altruism center" stimulated in the cortex by a helping impulse
2. the "pleasure center," stimulated by anything the brain comes to crave.

If I understand this correctly, the freedom inherent in the OSFSW movement could be derailed; there may well be unanticipated change to the less-than-vigilant.
In that, the pleasure center can immediately dominate the altruism center by the introduction of [money / control]. Again, if I read the implications, closed and/or 'for sale' software may well kill development of OSS. (I'm no longer engaged in a public service when its to my bank accounts benefit).

My vote is a cautious "no." Closed s/w has its own sourcings, already well in-place.
If accepted, could we rather make-up the (expected) gains by higher user contributions? I listen to NPR, a twisted model of this approach. Just my $.02.

[Roasted]

Wasn't that what Linspire used to do? You had to buy a subscription to their repository in order to download software.

You had to *buy* a subscription to download free software? Wow. No wonder it failed.

As long as the movement of open source software within Ubuntu itself is not altered whatsoever, I don't see any harm in this. Considering open source software is made for all platforms in general, I'm not sure how this would "slow down" the pace of seeing open source software for Ubuntu - just as long as it's still added to the software center and kept in a different area from paid software.

I'd much rather only see things like drivers and proprietary (but free) software in USC (and also games would be a good one). I'd rather not see it with a bunch of paid software in there that competes with open source software. But I guess my "compromising" approach is as long as it doesn't unbalance anything already in place, I fail to see the harm in it.

EDIT - Do you know what this reminds me of? This reminds me of when I was using Mandriva. When I installed Mandriva it had icons on the desktop to "upgrade" to their PowerPack series. Now granted, I didn't really care, but I felt it was a little off-putting to have an icon on the desktop "easily accessible" for me to pay them money for the PowerPack edition of Mandriva.

Now that little desktop icon enraged me. I sat there and looked at it. I couldn't make sense on how it was "Linux-like" to have a distro that's free and the second you fire it up it's like OH HEY PAY US MONEYS. However at the same time, this may be a slightly different scenario with Ubuntu, simply because on Mandriva it was asking me to pay money up front to upgrade -everything- to PowerPack. In their defense, you end up getting legal codecs and like a year of call support or something like that. But I felt it wasn't right to have it right there on the desktop. At the same token, Ubuntu isn't doing this "up front in our faces" in the same demeanor, simply because we have options. Free software, Paid software. Okay fine. I have a choice. At the same token, I'd rather see paid software available on THEIR WEB SITE other than the software center. Sure it might be easier for users to get it from the software center but the more I think about it, the more I'm just "not too sure" about that. The thought of turning into an iPhone app store makes everything I feel about Linux crumble.

There might be more intelligent ways to go about this...

[Lightstar]

They better be darn good applications if I'm to start paying for linux programs. FREE apps are already very good, at least for my needs.

[Roasted]

They better be darn good applications if I'm to start paying for linux programs. FREE apps are already very good, at least for my needs.

There's a couple curve balls to this...

A - On Windows, all I use is open source software. This could easily work on Linux despite non-free software being in the software center. Ultimately this suggests to me that non-free software in the software center literally won't do a damn thing to the current arsenal of open source applications, but merely add to it.

B - As you stated, they better be darn good applications in order to start paying. I keep hearing that these applications will probably be commercial grade. If "commercial grade" = costs money, is Linux not commercial grade? Is there truly a need for these applications to be added? Would it not be better to add them as "partners" of Ubuntu and list them on the Ubuntu web site for easy finding?

[sudoer541]

Is there an official statement about ubuntu selling paid software???:)

...I think thats...OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!! Cool!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:P
Im kinda freaking out (the good way) aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww I want to buy nero!!!! and games and OMG!!!! appzzzzzzz!!!!!!!\\:D/

thats kinda like...Xting!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!\\:D/

ok now seriously...any official statements???????:cool:


OMG!!!!!!! Hiiiiiiiiiiiii!!!!!!!!!!!!):P

[3rdalbum]

They better be darn good applications if I'm to start paying for linux programs. FREE apps are already very good, at least for my needs.

I agree, they'd better be a clear cut above the current FLOSS.

As in, highly-polished games, a prosumer video editor or DVD authoring package, and a good OCR program.

A web comic reader and a couple of text editors is NOT what I have in mind.

[Roasted]

Is there an official statement about ubuntu selling paid software???:)

...I think thats...OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!! Cool!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:P
Im kinda freaking out (the good way) aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww I want to buy nero!!!! and games and OMG!!!! appzzzzzzz!!!!!!!\\:D/

thats kinda like...Xting!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!\\:D/

ok now seriously...any official statements???????:cool:


OMG!!!!!!! Hiiiiiiiiiiiii!!!!!!!!!!!!):P

After you take your medication to simmer down a few notches, have a look at Ubuntu's roadmap to the Software Center.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu_Software_Center



October 2009 - Ubuntu 9.10 Karmic Koala
Introduce a new simple interface for locating, installing, and removing software, with better security based on PolicyKit instead of gksudo.[3]
April 2010 - Ubuntu 10.04 Lucid Lynx LTS
The Software Center will replace Synaptic, Software Sources, Gdebi, and possibly the Update Manager. This will include finding, installing, and uninstalling non-graphical software such as utilities, fonts and database software. A system will be included using Launchpad to allow interactive software ratings and reviews.[3]
October 2010 - Ubuntu 10.10 Maverick Meerkat
Integration of the ratings and review system from Launchpad into the Ubuntu Software Center, including the ability to purchase non-free software.[3]
April 2011 - Ubuntu 11.04
Improve sharing and tracking of software within the Store, to allow lists of installed software by parameters such as license, cost, or maintenance timetable. Allow users to find software by seeing what their friends have installed and also downloading a package once for deployment on several computers. There will also be a history feature that will indicate past software installations, removals and purchases, which will allow specific changes to be undone. At this stage the application should allow finding and installing specialized packages, including fonts and screensavers.[3]

[mike'o]

Hi.

I just got my new PC and installed the 10.10 and yes, there it is - World of Goo for $19,95!

The price is high, but for supporting the Linux gaming market I would like to buy it. But issues remain...

If I buy the game and later install 11.04 as I'm used to, which means first wiping all partitions except /home, does it mean I have to buy the game again if I want to keep on using it?

I would like to see Ubuntu One integration to Software Center, so all the info of your paid (and free) software could be stored in the Ubuntu One cloud and later restored after re-installation (or system crash).

This would allow you to easily continue with your must-have apps and paid software after the installation has completed

I would like this :popcorn:

[mike'o]

Hahaa!

Ubuntu Software Center has 'Reinstall previous purchases' function :D
It seems to connect to Ubuntu Software Center Store - so the data is not stored locally.

Didn't see a function for 'Save current software assortment' though, so only your paid software would be restored this way.

(Sorry if the name isn't just that in English - I'm using a Finnish system myself).

Mikko

[madjr]

Hahaa!

Ubuntu Software Center has 'Reinstall previous purchases' function :D
It seems to connect to Ubuntu Software Center Store - so the data is not stored locally.

Didn't see a function for 'Save current software assortment' though, so only your paid software would be restored this way.

(Sorry if the name isn't just that in English - I'm using a Finnish system myself).

Mikko

yes, you dont need to pay again.

and they are working on the second feature