#57: Seeking Council feedback/input on draft third party software policy -------------------------+--------------------- Reporter: pfrields | Owner: Status: new | Priority: normal Component: General | Resolution: Keywords: workstation | -------------------------+--------------------- Comment (by mattdm): Replying to [comment:14 rhughes]: > So, as the person that's going to have to implement this, I have very little idea what the above means, nor whether the upstream designs from Allan and Jimmac are suitable. You are really going to need to elaborate on nearly all of those points to specify something I can implement or test against. Sure. I'm happy to clarify. > For instance: > > "should prioritize" -- this refers to the search ordering in gnome- software, or the shell? or both? If the user searches for "chrome" are you seriously suggesting we should show "Nomacs Image Viewer" first and "Google Chrome" second? If you want me to return firefox when the user searches for chrome then I'm going to need a large table of data of translated keywords and the application-id you'd like me to return for those... It refers to wherever it shows up. I am suggesting that if someone searches for "web browser", open source web browsers be prioritized. "Nomacs Image Viewer" seems to show up on searches for "chrome" because it includes the word "chromeless" in its description; I don't see a problem with putting ''exact'' name matches first (when other settings are such that that result would be shown, of course). It *would* be nice if open source alternatives (rather than random description hits) would show up as alternatives even to exact match searches -- again, the key guidance is that the entire reason to allow non-free software is only in the larger context of our free software mission. If we can't figure out how to do that, we shouldn't do it at all. > "specify that there is no endorsement" -- in the search results (in which case you're going to need to come up with a way to say "we'd prefer you use free software" in about 40x200px of space...) or in the details page? Can we show it at the bottom under the screenshot and long description or does it have to be some huge modal-style warning box? I am not a designer, but I'm confident that the designers can come up with a solution that fits within the technical constraints and satisfies our needs. If they can't, we need to either change the technical constraints in some clever way, or just not do it. Again, I'm not a designer and am trying to steer clear of implementation details, but I think a huge modal warning box would be horrible. On the other hand, burying it in the fine print doesn't seem to advance our goals, either. I'm sure the designers can come up with something better than either of those. > "Fedora-prepared educational information" -- do we have URLs to cover non-free and patented available in all supported languages? At the moment we just show a localized description explaining what nonfree software is and allow the user to see the specific licenses (with links to the SPDX site) for free licenses. We can start with English and ask the translation teams to expand those. A localized description seems like a good start, but I do think it'd would be valuable to also have links to more information than can easily fit. Please don't use SPDX for Fedora license tags. There is not a 1:1 mapping. See https://lists.stg.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/thread/2BU5JTWLCQWRSPMORNPJLOPLDYHINGMV/#2BU5JTWLCQWRSPMORNPJLOPLDYHINGMV for discussion. > "must not show non-free search results" -- do we have to ask the user "your search for 'google chrome' will only show google chrome when you click this button [okay]" as this seems somewhat pointless. That particular phrasing would be pointless, yes. But that's a caricature of the request. I don't think the phrasing I actually suggested above would be pointless at all. > Could someone (mattdm?) test the gnome-software in rawhide (3.21.4) and tell me if what I've implemented is "good enough" for this ticket? In the case where the .repo file is installed but not enabled we still show the dialog to enable the nonfree source just before starting the install action. Thanks. Sure, I'll take a look. -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/council/ticket/57#comment:15> council <https://fedorahosted.org/council> Fedora Council Public Tickets _______________________________________________ council-discuss mailing list council-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/council-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx The Fedora Project's mission is to lead the advancement of free and open source software and content as a collaborative community.
