3rd Party software submission

[Christian Fredrik Schaller]

Hi guys,
So I kicked off adding 3rd party applications to Fedora Workstation 28, by
submitting two tickets proposing NVidia driver and Steam.

There are basically two pages to look at:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Workstation/Third_party_software_policies?...

And the practical guide for proposing an application at:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Workstation/Third_party_software_Workstati...

The second link includes a proposal template for adding apps. The vehicle
for proposing applications is the working group pagure instance.

I would recommend people to go over the requirements and work with 3rd
parties to propose further applications to include. We accept package
proposals that are either in RPM or Flatpak format.

Also we have a detailed howto created for how to create your repository
technically ready for inclusion in Fedora, but it needs a little more work
to get online, but Paul Frields is working on that and hopefully we will
get it resolved soon.

Christian

[Kalev Lember]

On 03/20/2018 03:03 PM, Christian Fredrik Schaller wrote:
>  I would recommend people to go over the requirements and work with
> 3rd
>  parties to propose further applications to include. We accept package
>  proposals that are either in RPM or Flatpak format. 
I don't think we have a mechanism to add third party flatpak repos right
now. We have fedora-workstation-repositories package for shipping rpm
.repo files (and support for it in gnome-software), but nothing
equivalent for flatpak remotes.

-- 
Kalev

[Christian Fredrik Schaller]

Couldn't we use the same RPM for the flatpak repositories  then?

On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 10:33 AM, Kalev Lember <kalevlember(a)gmail.com&gt;
wrote:

>  On 03/20/2018 03:03 PM, Christian Fredrik Schaller wrote:
>  > I would recommend people to go over the requirements and work with 3rd
>  > parties to propose further applications to include. We accept package
>  > proposals that are either in RPM or Flatpak format.
>
>  I don't think we have a mechanism to add third party flatpak repos right
>  now. We have fedora-workstation-repositories package for shipping rpm
>  .repo files (and support for it in gnome-software), but nothing
>  equivalent for flatpak remotes.
>
>  --
>  Kalev
>  _______________________________________________
>  desktop mailing list -- desktop(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  To unsubscribe send an email to desktop-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>

[Kalev Lember]

I think that would make sense. Christian, what are the requirements
here? Do we have to ship the flatpak repositories in a disabled state,
similar to the rpm repositories where they are enabled=0?

-- 
Kalev

On 03/20/2018 04:02 PM, Christian Fredrik Schaller wrote:
>  Couldn't we use the same RPM for the flatpak repositories  then?
>  
>  On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 10:33 AM, Kalev Lember <kalevlember(a)gmail.com
>  <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>  
>      On 03/20/2018 03:03 PM, Christian Fredrik Schaller wrote:
>      > I would recommend people to go over the requirements and work with 3rd
>      > parties to propose further applications to include. We accept package
>      > proposals that are either in RPM or Flatpak format.
>  
>      I don't think we have a mechanism to add third party flatpak repos right
>      now. We have fedora-workstation-repositories package for shipping rpm
>      .repo files (and support for it in gnome-software), but nothing
>      equivalent for flatpak remotes.
>  
>      --
>      Kalev
>      _______________________________________________
>      desktop mailing list -- desktop(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>      <mailto:[e-mail]>
>      To unsubscribe send an email to
>      desktop-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>      <mailto:[e-mail]>
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  _______________________________________________
>  desktop mailing list -- desktop(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  To unsubscribe send an email to desktop-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>

[Christian Fredrik Schaller]

I am not sure the whole disabled state makes any sense anymore even in RPM.
That was something that was decided we do when the idea was to
ship the repos by default, but disabled. Now that the 3rd party repos are
installed only once you enable 3rd party software I would say we
could drop the whole disabled setup as it is redundant.

Christian

On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 7:06 AM, Kalev Lember <kalevlember(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

>  I think that would make sense. Christian, what are the requirements
>  here? Do we have to ship the flatpak repositories in a disabled state,
>  similar to the rpm repositories where they are enabled=0?
>
>  --
>  Kalev
>
>  On 03/20/2018 04:02 PM, Christian Fredrik Schaller wrote:
>  > Couldn't we use the same RPM for the flatpak repositories  then?
>  >
>  > On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 10:33 AM, Kalev Lember <kalevlember(a)gmail.com
>  > <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>  >
>  >     On 03/20/2018 03:03 PM, Christian Fredrik Schaller wrote:
>  >     > I would recommend people to go over the requirements and work with
>  3rd
>  >     > parties to propose further applications to include. We accept
>  package
>  >     > proposals that are either in RPM or Flatpak format.
>  >
>  >     I don't think we have a mechanism to add third party flatpak repos
>  right
>  >     now. We have fedora-workstation-repositories package for shipping
>  rpm
>  >     .repo files (and support for it in gnome-software), but nothing
>  >     equivalent for flatpak remotes.
>  >
>  >     --
>  >     Kalev
>  >     _______________________________________________
>  >     desktop mailing list -- desktop(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  >     <mailto:[e-mail]>
>  >     To unsubscribe send an email to
>  >     desktop-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  >     <mailto:[e-mail]>
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > _______________________________________________
>  > desktop mailing list -- desktop(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  > To unsubscribe send an email to desktop-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  >
>  _______________________________________________
>  desktop mailing list -- desktop(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  To unsubscribe send an email to desktop-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>

[Kalev Lember]

Good. That would make it all much easier from the users point of view, I
think.

Kalev

On 03/21/2018 12:10 PM, Christian Fredrik Schaller wrote:
>  I am not sure the whole disabled state makes any sense anymore even
> in
>  RPM. That was something that was decided we do when the idea was to
>  ship the repos by default, but disabled. Now that the 3rd party repos
>  are installed only once you enable 3rd party software I would say we 
>  could drop the whole disabled setup as it is redundant.
>  
>  Christian
>  
>  On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 7:06 AM, Kalev Lember <kalevlember(a)gmail.com
>  <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>  
>      I think that would make sense. Christian, what are the requirements
>      here? Do we have to ship the flatpak repositories in a disabled state,
>      similar to the rpm repositories where they are enabled=0?
>  
>      --
>      Kalev
>  
>      On 03/20/2018 04:02 PM, Christian Fredrik Schaller wrote:
>      > Couldn't we use the same RPM for the flatpak repositories  then?
>      >
>      > On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 10:33 AM, Kalev Lember <kalevlember(a)gmail.com
> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>      > <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>>
> wrote:
>      >
>      >     On 03/20/2018 03:03 PM, Christian Fredrik Schaller wrote:
>      >     > I would recommend people to go over the requirements and work with 3rd
>      >     > parties to propose further applications to include. We accept package
>      >     > proposals that are either in RPM or Flatpak format.
>      >
>      >     I don't think we have a mechanism to add third party flatpak repos
> right
>      >     now. We have fedora-workstation-repositories package for shipping rpm
>      >     .repo files (and support for it in gnome-software), but nothing
>      >     equivalent for flatpak remotes.
>      >
>      >     --
>      >     Kalev
>      >     _______________________________________________
>      >     desktop mailing list -- desktop(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>      >     <mailto:[e-mail]
>      <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>      >     To unsubscribe send an email to
>      >     desktop-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>      <mailto:[e-mail]>
>      >     <mailto:[e-mail]
>      <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      > _______________________________________________
>      > desktop mailing list -- desktop(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>      <mailto:[e-mail]>
>      > To unsubscribe send an email to
>      desktop-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>      <mailto:[e-mail]>
>      >
>      _______________________________________________
>      desktop mailing list -- desktop(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>      <mailto:[e-mail]>
>      To unsubscribe send an email to
>      desktop-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>      <mailto:[e-mail]>
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  _______________________________________________
>  desktop mailing list -- desktop(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  To unsubscribe send an email to desktop-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>

[Ankur Sinha]

On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 12:19:16 +0100, Kalev Lember wrote:
>  Good. That would make it all much easier from the users point of
> view, I
>  think.
>  
>  Kalev
>  
>  On 03/21/2018 12:10 PM, Christian Fredrik Schaller wrote:
>  > I am not sure the whole disabled state makes any sense anymore even in
>  > RPM. That was something that was decided we do when the idea was to
>  > ship the repos by default, but disabled. Now that the 3rd party repos
>  > are installed only once you enable 3rd party software I would say we 
>  > could drop the whole disabled setup as it is redundant.
>  >  
I'm not so sure. Why is it redundant? With the third party repositories
set up at the moment, you're saying "These are repositories that you can
use if you want to.  Please review them and enable ones you'd use." So,
there's that decision for the user to make, which gives the user time to
review what these repositories are.

Enabling them by default takes this away from them. I think disabled by
default makes sense, especially in the case of repositories that provide
proprietary software.

-- 
Thanks,
Regards,

Ankur Sinha "FranciscoD"

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha

[Christian Fredrik Schaller]

It is redundant because you end up asking the same question multiple times.
Because if we do the disabled part you are first asked to approve 3rd party
repositories in general, including ones with proprietary software, then you
are asked again or have to find the setting to actually activate the 3rd
party repositories. And once you for instance then enabled lets say the
Chrome repo you have to go into GNOME Software again to actually install
Chrome. My take is that step 2 is redundant because you are answering the
question about if you want Chrome once you choose to install Chrome.
Remember enabling the repos do not mean any software gets autoinstalled.

Christian

On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 7:57 AM, Ankur Sinha <sanjay.ankur(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

>  On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 12:19:16 +0100, Kalev Lember wrote:
>  > Good. That would make it all much easier from the users point of view, I
>  > think.
>  >
>  > Kalev
>  >
>  > On 03/21/2018 12:10 PM, Christian Fredrik Schaller wrote:
>  > > I am not sure the whole disabled state makes any sense anymore even in
>  > > RPM. That was something that was decided we do when the idea was to
>  > > ship the repos by default, but disabled. Now that the 3rd party repos
>  > > are installed only once you enable 3rd party software I would say we
>  > > could drop the whole disabled setup as it is redundant.
>  > >
>
>  I'm not so sure. Why is it redundant? With the third party repositories
>  set up at the moment, you're saying "These are repositories that you can
>  use if you want to.  Please review them and enable ones you'd use." So,
>  there's that decision for the user to make, which gives the user time to
>  review what these repositories are.
>
>  Enabling them by default takes this away from them. I think disabled by
>  default makes sense, especially in the case of repositories that provide
>  proprietary software.
>
>  --
>  Thanks,
>  Regards,
>
>  Ankur Sinha "FranciscoD"
>
>  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  desktop mailing list -- desktop(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  To unsubscribe send an email to desktop-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>
>

[Ankur Sinha]

On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 10:49:06 -0400, Christian Fredrik Schaller wrote:
>  It is redundant because you end up asking the same question multiple
> times.
>  Because if we do the disabled part you are first asked to approve 3rd party
>  repositories in general, including ones with proprietary software, then you are
>  asked again or have to find the setting to actually activate the 3rd party
>  repositories. And once you for instance then enabled lets say the Chrome repo
>  you have to go into GNOME Software again to actually install Chrome. My take is
>  that step 2 is redundant because you are answering the question about if you
>  want Chrome once you choose to install Chrome.  
>  Remember enabling the repos do
>  not mean any software gets autoinstalled. 
Hrm, OK. I see what you mean. It is asking the user similar questions
and that, from a usability perspective, is not a good thing. Sure. My
concern is of a different nature.

I am concerned that in the current implementation, or in what I see
being discussed (so please correct me if this is inaccurate), I do not
see a stage where we point out to the user that we, as Fedora, would
really really reallllyyyy like them to use Free software, and not
use proprietary software unless absolutely necessary (right?).

Would you have any ideas on how the whole experience can include such a
statement to clearly emphasize our commitment to Free Software?

Like I had said in a reply before, I think this is an excellent
opportunity to make the Free Software philosophy more visible to end
users. :)

-- 
Thanks,
Regards,

Ankur Sinha "FranciscoD"

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha

[Christian Fredrik Schaller]

Well the current enablement of 3rd party software is meant to include stuff
in that regards and I think the revised text that was worked on with among
others Matthew Miller tried to come up with something better than the
current screenshots. Also in the GNOME software the licensing field do put
the work Proprietary in a bright red colour box which to me signals
'warning' since red usually is used as the colour of negative alerts. So I
do think we are covering this and I think that is good, but we should be
careful not to get to the stage where installing Chrome comes with a
blinking warning saying 'You can install this, but be aware that we morally
judge your for it' :)

Christian

On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 12:41 PM, Ankur Sinha <sanjay.ankur(a)gmail.com&gt;
wrote:

>  On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 10:49:06 -0400, Christian Fredrik Schaller wrote:
>  > It is redundant because you end up asking the same question multiple
>  times.
>  > Because if we do the disabled part you are first asked to approve 3rd
>  party
>  > repositories in general, including ones with proprietary software, then
>  you are
>  > asked again or have to find the setting to actually activate the 3rd
>  party
>  > repositories. And once you for instance then enabled lets say the Chrome
>  repo
>  > you have to go into GNOME Software again to actually install Chrome. My
>  take is
>  > that step 2 is redundant because you are answering the question about if
>  you
>  > want Chrome once you choose to install Chrome.
>
>  > Remember enabling the repos do
>  > not mean any software gets autoinstalled.
>
>  Hrm, OK. I see what you mean. It is asking the user similar questions
>  and that, from a usability perspective, is not a good thing. Sure. My
>  concern is of a different nature.
>
>  I am concerned that in the current implementation, or in what I see
>  being discussed (so please correct me if this is inaccurate), I do not
>  see a stage where we point out to the user that we, as Fedora, would
>  really really reallllyyyy like them to use Free software, and not
>  use proprietary software unless absolutely necessary (right?).
>
>  Would you have any ideas on how the whole experience can include such a
>  statement to clearly emphasize our commitment to Free Software?
>
>  Like I had said in a reply before, I think this is an excellent
>  opportunity to make the Free Software philosophy more visible to end
>  users. :)
>
>  --
>  Thanks,
>  Regards,
>
>  Ankur Sinha "FranciscoD"
>
>  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha
>

[Ankur Sinha]

On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 12:47:50 -0400, Christian Fredrik Schaller wrote:
>  Well the current enablement of 3rd party software is meant to include
> stuff in
>  that regards and I think the revised text that was worked on with among others
>  Matthew Miller tried to come up with something better than the current
>  screenshots.  
What screenshots are you referring to here?

>  Also in the GNOME software the licensing field do put the work
>  Proprietary in a bright red colour box which to me signals 'warning' since red
>  usually is used as the colour of negative alerts. So I do think we are covering
>  this and I think that is good, 
No, see, it isn't good enough.

What does the word "proprietary" mean to an end user that is targeted
here---one that is not necessarily part of the Open source eco system
and has no context?

What does it say about Free Software, and its importance?

What does it say about how and why the Fedora community has made a
commitment to this movement?

Nothing at all. So, no, the "proprietary" label is not enough.


>  but we should be careful not to get to the stage
>  where installing Chrome comes with a blinking warning saying 'You can install
>  this, but be aware that we morally judge your for it' :) 
I won't reply to this hyperbolic comment. What I will do, is quote the
"Freedom" foundation from here instead:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/fedora-project/project/fedora-overview.html

"We are dedicated to free software and content.

Advancing software and content freedom is a central community goal,
which we accomplish through the software and content we promote. We
choose free alternatives to proprietary code and content and limit the
effects of proprietary or patent encumbered code on the Project.

Sometimes this goal prevents us from taking the easy way out by
including proprietary or patent encumbered software in Fedora. But by
concentrating on the free software and content we provide and promote,
the end result is that we are able to provide:

- releases that are predictable and 100% legally redistributable for
  everyone;
- innovation in free and open source software that can equal or exceed
  closed source or proprietary solutions;
- and, a completely free project that anyone can emulate or copy in
  whole or in part for their own purposes.
"

So, how is this new feature is coherent with this in its current form?

What do the other community members think please?

-- 
Thanks,
Regards,

Ankur Sinha "FranciscoD"

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha

[Christian Fredrik Schaller]

On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 2:24 PM, Ankur Sinha <sanjay.ankur(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

>  On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 12:47:50 -0400, Christian Fredrik Schaller
> wrote:
>  > Well the current enablement of 3rd party software is meant to include
>  stuff in
>  > that regards and I think the revised text that was worked on with among
>  others
>  > Matthew Miller tried to come up with something better than the current
>  > screenshots.
>
>  What screenshots are you referring to here?
>  
There has been screenshots of this functionality shown here and in other
forums
where this has been discussed, I don't have a link at hand atm. but I will
check with
Kalev where I can find the latest screenshots and update with a link.

>  > Also in the GNOME software the licensing field do put the work
>  > Proprietary in a bright red colour box which to me signals 'warning'
>  since red
>  > usually is used as the colour of negative alerts. So I do think we are
>  covering
>  > this and I think that is good,
>
>  No, see, it isn't good enough.
>
>  What does the word "proprietary" mean to an end user that is targeted
>  here---one that is not necessarily part of the Open source eco system
>  and has no context?
>
>  What does it say about Free Software, and its importance?
>
>  What does it say about how and why the Fedora community has made a
>  commitment to this movement?
>
>  Nothing at all. So, no, the "proprietary" label is not enough. 
That label is there AFTER you have been pushed through the gated enable 3rd
party software
setup, which is mean to include in dept information about free software and
Fedora's mission.
So my point was that even after you been educated on the issue through that
gating process
there is some subliminal messaging around it.

>  > but we should be careful not to get to the stage
>  > where installing Chrome comes with a blinking warning saying 'You can
>  install
>  > this, but be aware that we morally judge your for it' :)
>
>  I won't reply to this hyperbolic comment. What I will do, is quote the
>  "Freedom" foundation from here instead:
>  https://docs.fedoraproject.org/fedora-project/project/fedora-overview.html
>
>
>  <snip> 
What I meant with my comment was that we want this to be a positive
push
for free software alternatives,
not a 'your an asshole for using non-free software' because that detracts
from the goal of promoting free software.


>  So, how is this new feature is coherent with this in its current form?
>
>  What do the other community members think please?
>
>  --
>  Thanks,
>  Regards,
>
>  Ankur Sinha "FranciscoD"
>
>  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha
>

On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 2:07 PM, Christian Fredrik Schaller 
<cschalle(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
>  <snip>
>  What I meant with my comment was that we want this to be a positive 
>  push for free software alternatives,
>  not a 'your an asshole for using non-free software' because that 
>  detracts from the goal of promoting free software. 
These goals are not mutually-exclusive. We should be able to provide 
some education on free software in a prominent and meaningful way, 
without shaming the user or making it difficult to install the software.

Strawman proposal: I'm imagining a moderately-sized red banner that 
says something along the lines of "This software does not respect your 
freedom. <a href="...">Learn more...</a>", which would be hard
to miss, 
but also not so large that it gets in the way or slows down the user. 
Currently the little red Proprietary license tag is easy to ignore and 
doesn't mean much. Kalev showed me a screenshot showing the existing 
"Learn more..." link in the software sources dialog, but that's 
somewhat buried and very easy to ignore.

[Kalev Lember]

On 03/21/2018 08:19 PM, mcatanzaro(a)gnome.org wrote:
>  Kalev showed me a screenshot showing the existing
>  "Learn more..." link in the software sources dialog, but that's somewhat
>  buried and very easy to ignore. 
That would be https://kalev.fedorapeople.org/find-out-more.png which
right now points to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_software

The wikipedia link is not great and is just a placeholder right now.
We'd need a Fedora page that talks about the Fedora Workstation-provided
third party repos and explains what they are and why we don't ship them
by default. This would be a good place to educate users about the free
software advantages and why they should use it over proprietary
alternatives.

I know that mattdm talked about having a docs.fedoraproject.org page for
this, but this hasn't yet materialized and if anyone wants to make a
temporary wiki page we can use while we don't have a docs page, that
would be totally awesome. And that wouldn't be wasted time either
because I'm sure the docs page can use the same content too.

-- 
Kalev

[Ankur Sinha]

On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 14:19:48 -0500, mcatanzaro(a)gnome.org wrote:
>  On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 2:07 PM, Christian Fredrik Schaller
>  <cschalle(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
>  
>      <snip>
>      What I meant with my comment was that we want this to be a positive push
>      for free software alternatives,
>      not a 'your an asshole for using non-free software' because that detracts
>      from the goal of promoting free software.
>  
>  
>  These goals are not mutually-exclusive. We should be able to provide some
>  education on free software in a prominent and meaningful way, without shaming
>  the user or making it difficult to install the software. 
Thanks for explaining this in such a clear way :)

>  
>  Strawman proposal: I'm imagining a moderately-sized red banner that says
>  something along the lines of "This software does not respect your freedom. <a
>  href="...">Learn more...</a>", which would be hard to miss, but
> also not so
>  large that it gets in the way or slows down the user. Currently the little red
>  Proprietary license tag is easy to ignore and doesn't mean much. Kalev showed
>  me a screenshot showing the existing "Learn more..." link in the software
>  sources dialog, but that's somewhat buried and very easy to ignore. 
This would be a nice start - is something like this doable?

-- 
Thanks,
Regards,

Ankur Sinha "FranciscoD"

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha

[Kalev Lember]

On 03/21/2018 08:07 PM, Christian Fredrik Schaller wrote:
>  
>  
>  On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 2:24 PM, Ankur Sinha <sanjay.ankur(a)gmail.com
>  <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>  
>      On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 12:47:50 -0400, Christian Fredrik Schaller wrote:
>      > Well the current enablement of 3rd party software is meant to include stuff in
>      > that regards and I think the revised text that was worked on with among others
>      > Matthew Miller tried to come up with something better than the current
>      > screenshots.
>  
>      What screenshots are you referring to here?
>  
>  There has been screenshots of this functionality shown here and in other
>  forums
>  where this has been discussed, I don't have a link at hand atm. but I
>  will check with
>  Kalev where I can find the latest screenshots and update with a link. 
https://kalev.fedorapeople.org/find-out-more.png -- this is what we have
in F28 and already has the revised text that we came up together with
mattdm and aday.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IF2FEeOdmFE&feature=youtu.be has a
screencast how it all comes together on a stock F28 install.

-- 
Kalev

[Ankur Sinha]

<snip> 
>      Nothing at all. So, no, the "proprietary" label is not
> enough.
>  
>  That label is there AFTER you have been pushed through the gated enable 3rd
>  party software
>  setup, 
>  which is mean to include in dept information about free software and
>  Fedora's mission.  
I'm not concerned about the gating. I agree that asking the same
question again and again inhibits usability.

As Michael pointed out in his e-mail, better wording could give more
visibility to Free software and the community's mission than the current
text.

>  So my point was that even after you been educated on the issue
> through that
>  gating process
>  there is some subliminal messaging around it.  
Well, it should really be more than subliminal messaging even at that
point. :)

For example, instead of framing all of this in terms of "proprietary"
software, can we frame it in terms of "non free"/"non free and not open
source" software? Would that require a review from a legal perspective?

I ask because even though the two terms are synonymous, "non free" (to
me) says more than that the software is proprietary. It also says that
there is something called "free software", and that gives me more
information to a user in an educational sense.

Would something like this be doable?

-- 
Thanks,
Regards,

Ankur Sinha "FranciscoD"

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha

[Andreas Nilsson]

On 2018-03-21 19:24, Ankur Sinha wrote:
>  On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 12:47:50 -0400, Christian Fredrik Schaller
> wrote:
> > Also in the GNOME software the licensing field do put the work
> > Proprietary in a bright red colour box which to me signals 'warning' since
> red
> > usually is used as the colour of negative alerts. So I do think we are covering
> > this and I think that is good,
>  No, see, it isn't good enough.
>
>  What does the word "proprietary" mean to an end user that is targeted
>  here---one that is not necessarily part of the Open source eco system
>  and has no context? 
If you click the label in the licensing field, it pops up a box with 
some more information.
That description also includes a link to Wikipedia that describes the 
lack of access to the source code, redistribution limitations, etc. of 
proprietary software.
Screenshot attached.
Probably possible to make it better, but maybe that discussion is better 
done in an issue tracker.
- Andreas

[Ankur Sinha]

>  If you click the label in the licensing field, it pops up a box with
> some
>  more information.
>  That description also includes a link to Wikipedia that describes the lack
>  of access to the source code, redistribution limitations, etc. of
>  proprietary software.
>  Screenshot attached.
>  Probably possible to make it better, but maybe that discussion is better
>  done in an issue tracker. 
Should I move this to the workstation issue tracker?

-- 
Thanks,
Regards,

Ankur Sinha "FranciscoD"

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha

[Andreas Nilsson]

On 2018-03-23 16:58, Ankur Sinha wrote:
> > If you click the label in the licensing field, it pops up a box
> with some
> > more information.
> > That description also includes a link to Wikipedia that describes the lack
> > of access to the source code, redistribution limitations, etc. of
> > proprietary software.
> > Screenshot attached.
> > Probably possible to make it better, but maybe that discussion is better
> > done in an issue tracker.
>  Should I move this to the workstation issue tracker? 
Not sure, possibly. Maybe the upstream issue tracker for GNOME Software 
is a better fit.
https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-software/issues
- Andreas

[Ankur Sinha]

>  Not sure, possibly. Maybe the upstream issue tracker for GNOME
> Software is a
>  better fit.
>  https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-software/issues 
Thanks!

I've filed these two tickets to get the ball rolling:

https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-software/issues/336 - "Improvements
to "Proprietary" pop box text to make it more informative about Free
software"

https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-software/issues/335 - "Would it be
possible to user Free software terminolgy to mark non-free software?
"NonFree" instead of "Proprietary" for example""

Please leave your suggestions there.

-- 
Thanks,
Regards,

Ankur Sinha "FranciscoD"

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha

[Chuck Anderson]

On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 04:41:20PM +0000, Ankur Sinha wrote:
>  > Remember enabling the repos do
>  > not mean any software gets autoinstalled.
>  
>  Hrm, OK. I see what you mean. It is asking the user similar questions
>  and that, from a usability perspective, is not a good thing. Sure. My
>  concern is of a different nature. 
Does enabling a third-party repo allow software to be automatically
installed from that repo to satisfy dependencies on system updates,
even if nothing has been explicitly installed from that third-party
repo?  Can a third-party repo override packages from Fedora repos?

>  I am concerned that in the current implementation, or in what I see
>  being discussed (so please correct me if this is inaccurate), I do not
>  see a stage where we point out to the user that we, as Fedora, would
>  really really reallllyyyy like them to use Free software, and not
>  use proprietary software unless absolutely necessary (right?).
>  
>  Would you have any ideas on how the whole experience can include such a
>  statement to clearly emphasize our commitment to Free Software?
>  
>  Like I had said in a reply before, I think this is an excellent
>  opportunity to make the Free Software philosophy more visible to end
>  users. :) 
Maybe we can "taint" the system if proprietary software is installed,
like how the kernel gets tainted with proprietary kernel modules?
ABRT can then report the tainted status in any bugs it files.

[Christian Fredrik Schaller]

On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 1:07 PM, Chuck Anderson <cra(a)wpi.edu&gt; wrote:

>  On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 04:41:20PM +0000, Ankur Sinha wrote:
>  > > Remember enabling the repos do
>  > > not mean any software gets autoinstalled.
>  >
>  > Hrm, OK. I see what you mean. It is asking the user similar questions
>  > and that, from a usability perspective, is not a good thing. Sure. My
>  > concern is of a different nature.
>
>  Does enabling a third-party repo allow software to be automatically
>  installed from that repo to satisfy dependencies on system updates,
>  even if nothing has been explicitly installed from that third-party
>  repo?  Can a third-party repo override packages from Fedora repos?
>
>  That would be a breach of the 3rd party software policy, so the answer is 
no. Of
course that
is something we will have to police as there is no technical block, so no
repo which does
something like that would be approved to begin with and if we find one that
started doing
so it would mean getting dropped. If 3rd party apps want different
dependencies
than what we offer in Fedora they would need to offer their application as
a Flatpak and
put their different versions etc. inside their own container.

Christian


>  > I am concerned that in the current implementation, or in what I
> see
>  > being discussed (so please correct me if this is inaccurate), I do not
>  > see a stage where we point out to the user that we, as Fedora, would
>  > really really reallllyyyy like them to use Free software, and not
>  > use proprietary software unless absolutely necessary (right?).
>  >
>  > Would you have any ideas on how the whole experience can include such a
>  > statement to clearly emphasize our commitment to Free Software?
>  >
>  > Like I had said in a reply before, I think this is an excellent
>  > opportunity to make the Free Software philosophy more visible to end
>  > users. :)
>
>  Maybe we can "taint" the system if proprietary software is installed,
>  like how the kernel gets tainted with proprietary kernel modules?
>  ABRT can then report the tainted status in any bugs it files.
>  
Don't think  it matters. First of all users don't see that information and
developers are
free to ignore crashers in Chrome or others anyway. And of course if we
break ABI we
want to know about it regardless.

Christian