Bug 1083817 - Software transparently offers proprietary software
Summary: Software transparently offers proprietary software
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED NOTABUG
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: gnome-software
Version: rawhide
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Richard Hughes
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2014-04-03 03:40 UTC by Pete Travis
Modified: 2014-04-07 20:04 UTC (History)
10 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2014-04-07 10:17:11 UTC
Type: Bug
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Pete Travis 2014-04-03 03:40:26 UTC
gnome-software-3.12.0-1

GNOME Software transparently offers proprietary software to users, without the user initiating an alternative software source. Proprietary software is also displayed in the gnome-shell overview search results, giving the impression the software is inherent to the environment or at least provided with Fedora.

The only apparent configuration dialog does not list a source for this software; just the COPRs I'm using.

At a glance, I see:
Google+
Kindle Reader
Twitter

$ yum repolist
Loaded plugins: langpacks
http://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/immanetize/nikola/fedora-21-x86_64/repodata/repomd.xml: [Errno 14] HTTP Error 404 - Not Found
Trying other mirror.
http://jenkins.cloud.fedoraproject.org/job/DNF/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/fedora-21-x86_64-build/repodata/repomd.xml: [Errno 14] HTTP Error 404 - Not Found
Trying other mirror.
repo id               repo name                                                                    status
rawhide/x86_64        Fedora - Rawhide - Developmental packages for the next Fedora release        40,543
repolist: 40,543


Please refer to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Third_Party_Repository_Policy and http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2014-01-23/fedora_board.2014-01-23-19.01.html . Providing the capability for Software to install this software is fine; doing so without explicit user action to turn it on is not.

Comment 1 Tom "spot" Callaway 2014-04-03 12:03:16 UTC
Can you post some screenshots of this? Also, do you have any non-fedora repositories enabled?

Comment 2 Matthias Clasen 2014-04-03 12:19:15 UTC
These are webapps. There is no third-party repository involved, and no software gets installed on your system.

Comment 3 Pete Travis 2014-04-03 13:15:24 UTC
(In reply to Tom "spot" Callaway from comment #1)
> Can you post some screenshots of this? Also, do you have any non-fedora
> repositories enabled?

Sorry, my system is being unusually rawhidey this morning and I have to run out. They're appearing as normal overview search matches, with a small Software icon to the left of the set to show the source of the match. The cited three were matched by 'accounts'. I'll try again later.

My enabled repositories are listed in Comment 0.

Comment 4 Pete Travis 2014-04-03 16:08:28 UTC
(In reply to Matthias Clasen from comment #2)
> These are webapps. There is no third-party repository involved, and no
> software gets installed on your system.

These are semantic distinctions.  In the overview, they are presented inline with already installed software.  In Software, they are presented with all the other software. 

From the end user perspective, a proprietary product is being provided.  The lack of a third party repository just means that Fedora is providing this product more directly.  Classification as a web app does not negate classification as a proprietary, third party product.  These distinctions are only meaningful to people who are dealing with the technical implementation, or to people who are attempting to assess technical compliance with policy.

Comment 5 Matthias Clasen 2014-04-03 19:46:57 UTC
The 'proprietary product' you are talking about here is simply the web. It is what most people use their computers for nowadays. 

In case it matters, you'll be able to reach the Fedora Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/TheFedoraProject or plenty of Fedora communities on G+: https://plus.google.com/u/0/s/Fedora/communities using these webapps.

Comment 6 Eric Christensen 2014-04-03 20:33:52 UTC
(In reply to Matthias Clasen from comment #5)
> The 'proprietary product' you are talking about here is simply the web. It
> is what most people use their computers for nowadays. 

Umm... no.  What I see is the open advertising of proprietary "web" products inside Fedora.  It's there before people even want them to be there.  This is not acceptable and is outside of the Board's decision on third-party and proprietary software being advertised.

Comment 7 Matthias Clasen 2014-04-04 02:06:01 UTC
Does the board maybe also have an opinion on EC2 and Amazon Web Services being 'advertised' on http://fedoraproject.org/get-fedora#clouds ?

This is getting ridiculous.

Comment 8 Pete Travis 2014-04-04 03:20:38 UTC
Screenshots available at http://immanetize.fedorapeople.org/screenshots/

The board's opinion of how the cloud product's compatibility with various services is presented doesn't seem directly relevant to users being offered proprietary software in the installed desktop environment.  The comparison is tenuous due to the difference in context and scope, and trying to make a single statement that will address both issues would be prohibitively difficult.  If there are concerns about advertising EC2 compatibility, they should be addressed separately.

Comment 9 Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller 2014-04-04 09:33:07 UTC
So if I understand you correctly, you think that offering a desktop application (GPL licensed) that as its only purpose let you read and send twitter messages is ok, but providing a link to the twitter homepage is not?

Comment 10 Eric Christensen 2014-04-04 12:46:41 UTC
Why is it so important for certain individuals to push proprietary solutions into the community that has, up until recently, been the open source community.  We strive to push FLOSS solutions and ignore proprietary ones.  Now, proprietary solutions are being thrust onto the user right from their desktop.  They don't even have to search for it, it's offered right up for them.

Comment 11 Tom "spot" Callaway 2014-04-04 13:43:43 UTC
This is not a legal concern. Pointing to web applications is not a source compliance issue. This is a policy and community compliance concern. Please open a ticket with FESCo: https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/

You're welcome to leave this bug open, but I'm lifting Fedora Legal.

P.S. Please do not confuse this action as support for this behavior. I simply am applying the appropriate criteria for this issue.

Comment 12 Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller 2014-04-04 14:33:02 UTC
Eric, we been offering applications and tools for various commercial web services for a long time in Fedora, this is nothing new.

Comment 13 Eric Christensen 2014-04-04 14:46:41 UTC
(In reply to Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller from comment #12)
> Eric, we been offering applications and tools for various commercial web
> services for a long time in Fedora, this is nothing new.

Not like this.  I've never started typing an application name into GNOME 3 and been presented with services like this.  These services aren't even installed on my system.

Little by little I seem to be losing control of my desktop.  Now I'm getting advertisements for proprietary commercial products on my computer without my even asking for them.

Comment 14 Pete Travis 2014-04-04 17:11:11 UTC
We can contrive language to conclusively demonstrate that this is not a violation of policy, or just as easily as we could come up with language that shows it *is* a violation of policy.  The policies are defined to guide the implementation of principle, and maintainers are trusted to uphold Fedora's Foundations.

Presenting products labeled as "proprietary" in the software installer is demonstrably a violation of the project's mandate for freedom and openness. If policy does not explicitly prohibit this, your judgment should.

Comment 15 Matthias Clasen 2014-04-04 23:24:29 UTC
Bugzilla is really not the best medium to continue this discussion, so I'm not going to reply here anymore. The way the language has been tending here ('certain individuals', 'push', 'judgement'), this can only end badly anyway.

Comment 16 Richard Hughes 2014-04-07 10:17:11 UTC
(In reply to Matthias Clasen from comment #15)
> Bugzilla is really not the best medium to continue this discussion

Agreed, bugzilla is not the right place for this discussion. I've commented on https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1273#comment:3 and we can continue to discuss on the Fesco trac if required.

Comment 17 Eric Christensen 2014-04-07 14:42:46 UTC
I've opened up a Board ticket for this issue.  https://fedorahosted.org/board/ticket/182


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.