October 10: paid software coming to the USC

[sudoer541]

Thats right!!! in October 10, there will be a limited amount of paid software (http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2010/07/just-what-will-be-for-sale-in-ubuntu.html) in the Ubuntu software centre.

Prepare your wallets...lol!!!;):D:P:)

[spoons]

I hope they aren't going to prevent free apps from being in the software centre because they compete with a payware app. If that happens, I'll switch.

[Excedio]

Cool story bro. Like the article says, I wonder what will be available for purchase.:-k

[FuturePilot]

in b4 OMG UR GONNA HAVE TO PAY FOR UBUNTU NOW. :P

[Excedio]

I hope they aren't going to prevent free apps from being in the software centre because they compete with a payware app. If that happens, I'll switch.

HIGHLY (can't think of how to emphasize this more) doubtful. I think the free apps are there to stay.

[Excedio]

in b4 OMG UR GONNA HAVE TO PAY FOR UBUNTU NOW. :P

Oh gosh...I really hope no one would actually think that...

[spoons]

HIGHLY (can't think of how to emphasize this more) doubtful. I think the free apps are there to stay.

I don't mean the ones that are already there, I mean ones which haven't yet been put in there in future releases.

[Sporkman]

We can make money now!

[Little Bones]

Well if it's things like video games that are made and released on platforms and for other OS'es that's a good thing.

[nothingspecial]

If I think it`s worth it I`ll pay.

Games? No thanks.

I donate to my favourite apps anyway - do you?

[Simian Man]

I'd be more concerned about how they plan on licensing these things. If you pay for something, will you be limited to installing it on one machine? Or will it be attached to a roaming account like Steam does?

[Excedio]

I don't mean the ones that are already there, I mean ones which haven't yet been put in there in future releases.

So did I. :-)

[Excedio]

I'd be more concerned about how they plan on licensing these things. If you pay for something, will you be limited to installing it on one machine? Or will it be attached to a roaming account like Steam does?

Probably attached to your Ubuntu One account?

[V for Vincent]

I think this is great - one of the things we need in order to really boost that market share.

[McRat]

More software choices are more better.

[SunnyRabbiera]

I think this will be more helpful as it could help those worrying about "legal" codecs at bay.

[The Real Dave]

Probably attached to your Ubuntu One account?

I'd imagine and hope so, in the same way that purchased content is shared with the Ubuntu One Music Store.

[Lucradia]

*waits for people to move to debian when they find ubuntu has locked out non-free codecs that you have to pay for normally.*

[Stancel]

I would pay, if it were good....to be honest a lot of Linux software really isn't that good, that's as polite as I can get without sounding like an anti-Linux troll, which I'm not.

[SunnyRabbiera]

*waits for people to move to debian when they find ubuntu has locked out non-free codecs that you have to pay for normally.*

Doubtful Ubuntu would do this

[Sporkman]

Would anybody here consider selling software on the USC?

[Excedio]

Would anybody here consider selling software on the USC?

To earn money on something they created for you to use.

[Stancel]

To earn money on something they created for you to use.

Not to be nitpicky or anything, but he didn't ask why anyone would sell something on there, he asked if anyone here would sell something on there. ;)

[imgx64]

Don't tell RMS about this (and given the way he browses the internet (http://lwn.net/Articles/262570/), he's unlikely to know unless someone tells him.) If he knows about it, he will switch to Hulk mode, announce Canonical a traitor to (his idea of) Free Software, call it worse than Microsoft, and probably start badubuntu.org. :-|

Anyway, it sounds like a good idea to me. But I wonder if(and how) they will limit how people use the bought software on other computers, and whether we'll have 'piracy' issues or not.

[NightwishFan]

I see nothing wrong with it, pay for does not mean proprietary (though it does not mean open either). There is room for business in open source as well, if at least some of the software is like that, then fine.

[DeadSuperHero]

Will this allow for inclusion of proprietary, but non-pay apps as well?

There's a bunch of 2D adventure games that use the proprietary Adventure Game Studio engine that would be great on Linux. There's a small bug with save paths that needs to be addressed in the AGS Linux runtime, but I'd love to get a bunch of my favorite independent adventure games ported over. ;)

[undecim]

Since they will be implimenting a payment system anyways, I hope they offer the option to donate to the devs of the free apps. Even if it's opt-in for the devs.

[imgx64]

Will this allow for inclusion of proprietary, but non-pay apps as well?

From http://www.ubuntu.com/project/about-ubuntu/components:

Multiverse

The multiverse component contains software that is not free, which means the licensing requirements of this software do not meet the Ubuntu main component licence policy.
The onus is on you to verify your rights to use this software and comply with the licensing terms of the copyright holder. This software is not supported and usually cannot be fixed or updated. Use it at your own risk.

I believe non-pay proprietary software falls under that.

[V for Vincent]

Since they will be implimenting a payment system anyways, I hope they offer the option to donate to the devs of the free apps. Even if it's opt-in for the devs.

Good point. That's only fair.

[meadhikari]

Free as in Freedom not free beer is coming be prepared

[Paqman]

Good, presumably this means the end of having to use non-updateable .debs to get paid-for apps.

Lots of good stuff in the pipeline for USC. I was a bit sceptical of it when it first came out. I thought it was just a clone of Add/Remove and didn't quite see the point, but it's good to see them pushing forwards into places desktop Linux needs to go.

[Excedio]

Not to be nitpicky or anything, but he didn't ask why anyone would sell something on there, he asked if anyone here would sell something on there. ;)

Ahh crap! Sorry about that, I had just rolled out of bed when I read it. :-D

[Duncan J Murray]

I imagine this is a prelude to persuading some of the big software companies to coming to linux - such as adobe's photoshop and quark express etc...

Sounds like a great idea, as long as it's implemented properly and doesn't suffer from problematic drm issues.

As has been mentioned before, this would be a great opportunity to integrate some method of easy donation to open source software projects.

Duncan

[Lucradia]

I imagine this is a prelude to persuading some of the big software companies to coming to linux - such as adobe's photoshop and quark express etc...

Sounds like a great idea, as long as it's implemented properly and doesn't suffer from problematic drm issues.

As has been mentioned before, this would be a great opportunity to integrate some method of easy donation to open source software projects.

Duncan

Actually, it is a DRM system, no matter how you think of it. So, it will suffer DRM issues.


I see nothing wrong with it, pay for does not mean proprietary (though it does not mean open either). There is room for business in open source as well, if at least some of the software is like that, then fine.

That's why there's a difference between OSS and FOSS.

[BrokenKingpin]

I think this is a great thing.

[Simian Man]

I see nothing wrong with it, pay for does not mean proprietary (though it does not mean open either). There is room for business in open source as well, if at least some of the software is like that, then fine.

Pay for actually does mean proprietary for all intents and purposes. If there is a great open source application that costs money people will just fork it and give it away for free.

There are some areas where this is really OK like Red Hat and CentOS where Red Hat can still make money off of support even when the exact same product is available for free, but this doesn't really translate to most applications. That's fine with me, but things like this (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html) don't actually work in practice.

[RiceMonster]

Pay for actually does mean proprietary for all intents and purposes. If there is a great open source application that costs money people will just fork it and give it away for free.

There are some areas where this is really OK like Red Hat and CentOS where Red Hat can still make money off of support even when the exact same product is available for free, but this doesn't really translate to most applications. That's fine with me, but things like this (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html) don't actually work in practice.

I agree. Also, the "charge for support" model does not really work for consumer targetted software, which is what is probably going to be sold in USC. For business and enterprise software, it does work well, which is why Red Hat has been successfull with that type of business model.

[Paqman]

Pay for actually does mean proprietary for all intents and purposes.

Indeed. And what's wrong with that? How many of us can say we're not using any proprietary software at all?

The reality is that most people use both proprietary and open source software. That may bug the zealots, but they've got a long way to go before they convince me that using only open source software is an practical and attractive option.

Open source rocks, but there's also a lot of great proprietary software out there.

[Vincentlaborant]

I hope they aren't going to prevent free apps from being in the software centre because they compete with a payware app. If that happens, I'll switch.

Then simply use Synaptic :KSto find the package you need. All apps are in the repro's, so as long as the repro's are unchanged you can still find them easily, or just brows on the web.

[98cwitr]

I see all the linux software vendors going this route, when this happens...Ill be sure to image my machine ;)

[qualtch]

I already posted this same text to another topic where this same topic is discussed, but I guess I'll quote it here too as I'm interested to know these matters... :D


This concept truly seems wonderful. Might be a good way to encourage developers to make more programs to Ubuntu :)

Though on other forums, one mentioned a good point considering this becoming feature: If one pays for a software, does he have the right to recieve proper assistance in technical problems from the developer? Who has the responsibility if issues occur? If the program doesn't work for some reason (excluding e.g. if you buy a game that is way below the hardware requirements and it doesn't work), is there a refund option?

[TriBlox6432]

Now software companies might port their stuff to Linux. If that happens, and we can get a few particular apps (Photoshop, MSOffice, iTunes, etc.) then there's nothing holding Linux back from gaining popularity at an alarming rate. I'm so excited!!