Filtering By License Should Be Possible in App Markets

tonymercmobily writes "With the latest news from Microsoft, which will allow open source apps in their store, we will see more and more an abundance of per-pay applications mixed with license-free ones. What if you can't tell between free and non-free anymore? Even now, a quick search on the Android market is just not telling enough. But what do you do then when Ubuntu has the same problem?" For Android there's always the F-Droid market that exclusively lists Free Software (it's small, but I've found it pretty useful).

Comments

Wait

[masternerdguy]

Except in Apples: There's no free as in freedom there.

I don't know about you...

[Carik]

...but here's what I do:

I use the software that does what I need most effectively. My needs are rarely served by refusing to use a piece of software just because it's not open source. I often find that the open source software is a better value (for my needs, GIMP is a better choice than Photoshop, and it's starting to look like it's also a better choice than Lightroom), but not always.

The simple fact is, most people just don't care what license their software is. You can complain as much as you want that other people are just uneducated, but it doesn't matter.

To address one point directly from the article:

Are we really approaching a world where "free" could mean "under a free license", or "proprietary and crippled in terms of features", or "proprietary but ad-supported"? Really?

No. We're not approaching that. We're STILL at that. Free, to the vast run of humanity, means "you don't have to pay for it." It means "This doesn't cost anything." To a relatively small number, it may also mean "I have set this product free, and you may do whatever you want with it," but that's not the majority view.

Google knows that. That's why the free label on Android means "no charge." So does Canonical. They've come closer than anyone else to marketing linux in a way that appealed to ordinary consumers. Those ordinary consumers don't really care whether an app or application is open source. They care whether they'll have to pay for it or not. That's not a failing on their part. That's good business sense. It's rarely a worthwhile business technique to annoy your consumers with ideology: it's a much better technique to offer them stuff they don't have to pay for, if they'll just buy this one expensive thing from you.

Re:I don't know about you...

[Carik]

[blockquote]I suspect that many people (including myself), when searching for an application in an App market would prefer to browse through the FLOSS offerings first, then fall back to free (as in beer) or adware and proprietary apps if nothing suitable (or familiar) is available.[/blockquote]

You're probably right. But "many" is not the majority. Most people just want to know whether it works. Google and Canonical aren't really aiming for the FOSS community. They're aiming for the community loosely labeled "people who have money." There's a fair amount of overlap, of course, but there's a lot more people in the second group than the first. Confusing 80% of the first community to cater to 90% of the second isn't really a good business decision.

That said, it probably wouldn't cost them much to add the feature, and it would be pretty easy to make it not get in the way of people who didn't care. I admit it would be a clever thing to do, and it would be nice if they did, since there are people who care.

Re:I don't know about you...

[c0d3g33k]

But "many" is not the majority. Most people just want to know whether it works. Google and Canonical aren't really aiming for the FOSS community. They're aiming for the community loosely labeled "people who have money." There's a fair amount of overlap, of course, but there's a lot more people in the second group than the first.

Confusing 80% of the first community to cater to 90% of the second isn't really a good business decision.

You're getting pretty high on the Ladder of Inference (http://gwynteatro.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/climbing-the-ladder-of-inference/). This wouldn't have to be visible at the top level of an App market search/browse (using the most broadly applicable defaults), so the potential for confusion is minimal. Put it somewhere in 'advanced search options' and the people who care can find it.

As an aside, a lot more people may care about more than "it works" than you think, and the influence of the smaller group may be bigger than you think. I think it's just a matter of marketing, really. Look at how many people take "green", "organic", "fair-trade" or "save the planet" into account when purchasing something. You underestimate people - I'm boggled a how much some people know about the carbon footprint of certain things, even when their personal stereotype suggests they shouldn't. People have the potential to care about more than the merely practical and should at least have the opportunity to discover factors they may care about. From personal experience, family, friends and acquaintances don't understand all the nuances of FOSS (or proprietary vs. open, or DRM-free vs. locked down or un-contained vs. walled-garden), but they know that I do. They ask when it matters to them and they weigh what I tell them when making a decision. As a result they understand the larger issues better over time, make more informed decisions as a result and seem satisfied with the outcome regardless of which they chose. That's a win as far as I'm concerned.

Oh dear

[gaspyy]

OK, I'm a software developer and graphic designer. I know all about GPL and Creative Commons and I released plenty of my stuff under open and proprietary licenses as well.

However, when I buy or download an app (in "consumer mode"), I simply don't care about its license. What matters if it works as advertised, if it contains malware and if it's fun (for games). That's it. I couldn't care less if, say, "Smart Tools" is GPL v3 or Apache or proprietary. It does the job. 99.999% people think the same.

If you want to have only open source software on your tablet or phone, pat yourself on the back, you're so special.

Re:Should FSF decide to change its name

[tepples]

FOSS is an initialism including "open source", a term that isn't perfect either. The term "open source" might get confused with a program whose source code is available but under a license forbidding commercial distribution or distribution of derivatives or even distribution at all. In fact, I've seen exactly this confusion happen at my last employer.

Re:And?

[polymeris]

I almost always use precompiled FOSS. Why? Because in the event that something breaks, e.g. with a change of hardware or a software update, or if I need a new feature, I can then download the source and fix/improve it, without needing to look for and get used to a new program.

Games are an example of this for me. I hadn't played any propietary ones till the Humble Bundle came out-- decided to give indie games a try. A frustrating experience, quickly noticed how useful it is to have access to the source when something goes wrong, even if 95% of the time you don't need it.

A Good Start...

[sigmabody]

I do think this is valuable information, but it doesn't go far enough. You should be able to filter apps by permissions as well, on platforms which support per-operation permissions for applications.

You know what would be even better, though? If the per-operation permissions were settable on a per-application basis, and then spoofed/failed if the app can't work without it. There are plenty of apps that I want to use, but require extraneous permissions for things I don't care about, and/or don't want the app to access. If someone could build a platform which put the permission usage into the user's hands (even as an Android variant, for example), that would be awesome.

Re:Should FSF decide to change its name

[unixisc]

Answer to your headline question, it absolutely should! Hey, call it 'Liberated Software' for crying out loud, nobody will mistake that to mean price = $0.00. Use the right words in the right places. Any Tom, Dick or Harry one asks will, if asked about free software, think that a CD that he can just pick up, insert into his PC and install what's there, contains it. He's not likely to know about the source code and all that.

Really, the best term for that is 'Open Source', but that's for those who are focussed on a devlopment methodology, and not a cult. For those who are absolutely hung up on RMS's concepts of 'liberty' as opposed to development methodology, call it something like 'Liberated Software' or 'Software Liberty'. There is no reason to stick to the term 'Free Software' like a leech, particularly when it's such a misleading term. And yeah, that implies that the FSF should change its name. Drop terms like 'Free Software' or 'Software Freedom' and call it 'Liberated Software' or 'Software Liberty' if one likes. And rename the FSF as LSF or Liberated Software Foundation, or something along those lines.

Or alternatively, why not make use of the GNU brand, and call it GNU Software Foundation, or GSF? At least, it ties it w/ GNU, and doesn't confuse it w/ other such projects such as Debian, KDE and so on.

Re:Search for GPL

[drinkypoo]

Google should know the license so that if the issue of some software needing to be treated differently comes up in the future they know which is which without an audit. Then they could express this information in an advanced search form at little to no cost. Indeed, it should lower their costs over time, since people would be spending less time looking at apps they don't want anyway.