Follow

Heads up! is on track to ban all commercial activity by projects on Microsoft Store in about a week! This is even worse than their (eventually repealed) 2011 ban on for their app store! 😡️ We demand rollback of this new policy: sfconservancy.org/blog/2022/ju

@conservancy First I hear Lennart jumped to Microsoft and now this. Something is amiss.

@conservancy free as in freedom software can be and often is provided as commercial software, too. Hence, this strikes me as selective restraint of trade. It is not a platform I am particularly interested personally in delivering products for, however I do recognize others may choose to and must have the freedom to continue doing so if they do.

@conservancy Wait, so no pricing may profit from open-source? I wonder how many people wrote BSD/MIT/Apache-licensed code that is now in some commercial project — and otherwise generally available for free. Sounds like at least every electron-app will be excluded. And anything using Python or Java. Isn’t the Windows-API backed by FLOSS, too? Or did they do proprietary changes, so they are not in violation?

But I guess, I’m overthinking this …

@ArneBab @pixouls No doubt the wording is awful, but SFC is pretty clearly misrepresenting the intent, as stated plainly in the tweet they reference in that writeup.

@a @ArneBab @pixouls It may be nitpicking, but I'm not so sure SFC is misrepresenting anything here, other than by omission.

The point remains that packaging FOSS and charging for that is entirely within the FOSS license terms.

So forbidding this practice despite the developers' express wish, which they make known by their choice of license, is a roundabout attack on FOSS culture.

I think it's correct that SFC blows this up. But the problem is...

@a @ArneBab @pixouls ... more generally that the terms of a gatekeeping app store may clash with the terms of developers, also of commercial software. It's just a bad distribution model for software.

@a That tweet was only a response to criticism that supported the notion someone else brought up.

But as @pixouls says, this takes away Freedoms the copyright holders explicitly gave to the public.

It might be you selling my software for profit.

As I explicitly allow in the license.

To prevent you from using the name of the software for that, I’d use trademark law, not copyright law.

Because trademark law is what’s made to protect against misrepresentation.

@conservancy They almost certainly updated the policy because of third party developers selling other people's open source software for a fee.

That being said, I could also see the position that they don't want their software store to "sell" software that's "free" elsewhere: It discourages people from using the store. While I've happily paid for Windows Store versions to support the devs, maybe it'd be better to just donate instead of buying a special version.

@conservancy I was considering selling builds of my new project on the Windows Store. Guess I'll have to setup my own infrastructure to charge for Windows builds.

@be @conservancy The only problem here appears to be if the price for the Store version and the price for elsewhere is different. And even then, I suspect Microsoft has no issue with FOSS developers charging for their own projects... it's about people repackaging open source to scam people.

@ocdtrekkie @conservancy The issue remains that Microsoft can change the terms on a whim.

@be @conservancy That's definitely true of any store platform. I definitely wouldn't sole-source on the Windows Store for sure.

@be @conservancy Looks like they just want to remove apps that are unofficially listed in the Microsoft Store: twitter.com/gisardo/status/154. So if you are the maintainer of the app you should be fine.

@be @conservancy In any case, it is always good to have a fallback and backup plans.

@conservancy @devinprater

My first thought?

probably an effort to push out the spam they've encouraged.

Theres been quite a few foss barely packaged into the store over time that charge money where no additional support is offered. 🤷🏻

@antijingoist @conservancy @devinprater

> There's ...

There's nothing wrong with 3rd parties selling free software and it should be allowed.

@conservancy this sucks, good think i don't use the microsoft store

or microsoft windows

@conservancy@mastodon.technology I don't think the people against this policy have ever looked at the Microsoft Store. It's filled with paid crappy 3rd party repackages of open source software. Yes it might be allowed by a project's license, but that doesn't mean it's good for anyone, including the user and the developer(s). Microsoft is literally loosing out on revenue by disallowing more sold apps, I don't think this policy was made in bad faith. Poorly worded? Maybe.

@conservancy Their claim is simply not true. FOSS ensures the source code is freely available (among other things). Binary software may not be, e.g. Ardour. They know this, their VSCode source code is free, but binaries are not (look at the rationale behind VSCodium or VSCode OSS forks).

Shame on them! 🤬

@conservancy I'd like to put a price on my otherwise free-of-charge software if I do put them on a proprietary store. guess that's not something big tech overlords like

@conservancy fuck Microsoft. I left them a long time ago and will never turn back.

@conservancy Many don't understand what is this about. They are just trying to ban other people from selling FOSS software, and just allow the original author to do it.

@cristiioan @conservancy
> trying to ban other people from selling FOSS software, and just allow the original author to do it.

that's the problem

@conservancy Am I missing something? That post is literally a lie and clearly not what this policy is aimed at.

It says you may not profit from programs (not just open source) that are otherwise available for free. It's about protecting these programs from scam reuploads that are rampant on these stores. WTF?

As for programs that already use it as a donation platform, that's just kinda not what it's for? And surely you can do better than a platform that takes a 12% cut

@conservancy the course has been corrected on this already. They were just trying to stop rando's from copying projects and putting them up for sale, leaving the creator out.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon for Tech Folks

This Mastodon instance is for people interested in technology. Discussions aren't limited to technology, because tech folks shouldn't be limited to technology either!