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.
Can you post some screenshots of this? Also, do you have any non-fedora repositories enabled?
These are webapps. There is no third-party repository involved, and no software gets installed on your system.
(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.
(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.
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.
(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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Eric, we been offering applications and tools for various commercial web services for a long time in Fedora, this is nothing new.
(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.
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.
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.
(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.
I've opened up a Board ticket for this issue. https://fedorahosted.org/board/ticket/182