[Under vote] Open source software distributed via store.ovi.com [Archive] - maemo.org

Jaffa

2009-11-21, 22:56

The interesting bit isn't open source - assuming the policy of keeping maemo.org Extras enabled out-of-the-box is maintained into the future. The interesting bit is, I think, developers who do some open source work and some commercial work.

Would I consider charging 99p for Hermes (http://hermes.garage.maemo.org/)? Maybe (probably not). Micropayments are fun, but I know I'm not going to make a fortune. However, a little bit of extra cash helps pay for Christmas presents etc.

This thought is moot if the current Nokia approach to maemo.org Extras side-by-side with Ovi, and enabled out-of-the-box, changes. This would be a Bad Thing as Ovi will almostly certainly not have the level of integration and process which has been worked on for so long with things like maemian, autobuilder etc.

qgil

2009-11-22, 06:38

If you don't mind, I think it would be good to keep the scope in the distribution of software free as in beer and speech at Ovi. It is complicated enough, but solvable if we agree on the approach.

qgil

2009-11-23, 06:00

At http://maemo.org/community/brainstorm/view/open_source_software_distributed_via_store-ovi-com/ there is

Solution #6: Fix Ovi to allow for easier publication of OSS apps

Posted on 2009-11-22 20:00 UTC by Javier S. Pedro.

I'm sure Ovi could allow for easy publication of (at least) free OSS apps. Putting it simply, Maemo Select does it, and it is hosted under a *.nokia.com domain. Why not do the same for ovi.com ?

Maemo Select is not a publisher but a selector. It points to apps uploaded somewhere else by someone else. You could have a "javispedro Select" and do just the same. :)

Even if your proposed solution is theoretically right, in practice it is not known if/when Ovi will be in a situation to accept submission of free applications from individuals. Therefore I believe it is good to pursue the goal, but finding an intermediate solution that works in the short term.

Venomrush

2009-11-23, 06:40

I'm thinking having a publisher = Maemo
Maemo = maemo.org

Solo developers/individuals submit free applications here at maemo.org then it'll get published to Ovi

Something like http://store.ovi.com/publisher/Maemo = http://maemo.org/downloads

Maemo.org should not having any problems with legal requirements as it's practically part of Nokia?

qgil

2009-11-23, 07:09

attila77

2009-11-23, 07:38

The question here is long term strategy of Ovi. You said we should ignore the payment part for now. Agreed. Now, the question is what is the real gain by duplicating distribution channels ? There are numerous drawbacks (further muddying the understanding of the purpose of Extras in users heads, splintering OSS projects (some only in Ovi, some only in Extras), duplicating infrastructure and overhead of promoting software in two channels with separate requirements, QA, problems, etc). So, first, I'd like to understand if the scenario is actually trading in Extras for more potential exposure via Ovi, or are there any more advantages to this ?

NvyUs

2009-11-23, 07:58

i thought the whole purpose of ovi store for Maemo was to give users and developers a channel to purchase and sell content, if there is no paid content on ovi store from indie devs then its quite pointless even getting them access when there's Extras to distribute to, cutting out the middle man in the process and complicated criteria they must meet

javispedro

2009-11-23, 08:23

I actually voted for Extras to be used instead of Ovi, specially if Extras is going to be on device and Select is prominently featured somewhere -- in which case I can't see a reason to use Ovi. It would only cause even more fragmentation than what we have now.

But If people want to use Ovi, fixing it seems the most logical solution (but not possible at the moment as Quim said).

Another argument would be whether Select is really "prominently featured". Maybe Ovi Store could link to it? Or just put Application Manager back in the first page of icons in the Launcher? (Or put Ovi back into the second page...).

benny1967

2009-11-23, 08:37

@ attila77, NvyUs:

There's Solution#1, proposed by Quim:

Solution #1: maemo.org Downloads is all what OSS developers need
Posted on 2009-11-21 20:09 UTC by Quim Gil.

maemo.org Downloads is a good channel for publication, promotion and distribution of good quality open source software. The publishing process is open source and community friendly, and provides a community Quality Assurance process useful for developers. Complemented with the Extras-testing and Extras-devel repositories, a free software developer don't need anything else.

I voted for this solution - mainly because I'm irritated about this whole thing and don't see where it's coming from... and where it leads us to.

Either it's meant as a response to threads like these
http://talk.maemo.org/showthread.php?t=34661
(where developers complain that it's difficult to get commercial software into Ovi Store). If so, I may have missed the point of the privious discussions, as I thought they would be about non-free, proprietary software that can't be distributed through Extras in the first place.

If there's a different background, then again I'm glad I voted for #1... It took years (literally) to establish Extras as the one repository for community software. Remember the days when you couldn't install application X because it depended on library Y which was provided by repository Z which you never heard about before? And you had to chase the forum for solutions? I'm not sure if I want a similar situation with Ovi and Extras.

Maybe before discussing the solutions, it would be cool to know what the problem is and why we'd want free software to move to the Nokia-controlled Ovi Store rather than the community-controlled Extras repository?

attila77

2009-11-23, 08:47

I agree (except for the minor point below), but was just wondering if it's me not seeing something.

php?t=34661[/url]
as I thought they would be about non-free, proprietary software that can't be distributed through Extras in the first place.

AFAIK you can distribute non-free things in the, well, non-free section of Extras :) The downside compared to Ovi being you have to organize payment yourself.

benny1967

2009-11-23, 09:11

attila77, you're right... I'm not aware of any documented process to get apps into the non-free section of Extras, though. Seems to be one of these "...as it happens" things. ;)

qgil

2009-11-23, 10:13

Just in case this is useful for the discussion of ope source apps in Ovi:
http://repository.maemo.org/extras/pool/fremantle/non-free/
http://repository.maemo.org/extras-testing/pool/fremantle/non-free/
http://repository.maemo.org/extras-devel/pool/fremantle/non-free/

http://wiki.maemo.org/Uploading_to_Extras#.22non-free.22_packages

GeneralAntilles

2009-11-23, 13:47

drm

2009-11-23, 13:57

If there's no payment involved, I absolutely don't see the point. Unless Nokia is planning on completely removing Extras from devices and making users print out and fax in liability waivers to add it, then what possible reason could developers have for wanting to distribute open source software through Ovi instead of Extras?
Ovi store could link to extras. The reason would be more people downloading the software from extras. It could be on maemo.org downloads numbers… Isn’t that nice?

GeneralAntilles

2009-11-23, 14:15

Ovi store could link to extras. The reason would be more people downloading the software from extras. It could be on maemo.org downloads numbers… Isn’t that nice?

The proposal isn't to link to Extras to improve exposure (that's the service Maemo Select is providing), but to upload OSS software directly to Ovi. There are only two reasons I can see to do this, to prepare for a future point where payment on OSS applications through Ovi is a feasible option or because Nokia is going to do something ill-advised with Extras.

drm

2009-11-23, 14:32

The proposal isn't to link to Extras to improve exposure (that's the service Maemo Select is providing), but to upload OSS software directly to Ovi. There are only two reasons I can see to do this, to prepare for a future point where payment on OSS applications through Ovi is a feasible option or because Nokia is going to do something ill-advised with Extras.
If that’s the case I’m frontally against. If Nokia wants extras on ovi, just need to link it. It doesn’t make sense to try to sell OSS made by the community.
I created that option in the brainstorm.

Texrat

2009-11-23, 21:48

attila77

2009-11-23, 23:28

but why is product liability an issue for Ovi.com, and not maemo.org?

In other words, why can a developer upload a particular app to Maemo Extras without needing insurance, but not Ovi?

I think it has been discussed before (search fails me), simply put, (Nokia through) Ovi is a much juicier and tangible legal target than a community site (even if it is heavily sponsored by Nokia).

Texrat

2009-11-23, 23:32

I think it has been discussed before (search fails me), simply put, (Nokia through) Ovi is a much juicier and tangible legal target than a community site (even if it is heavily sponsored by Nokia).

Okay... that answers from the desperate lawyer's perspective, but is that the only explanation? If so, it's a weak one (no offense to you Attila).

attila77

2009-11-23, 23:49

Well, even the reason I mentioned above is speculation, and I don't think we'll se an official explanation :) Anyhow, it would REALLY help if we had some input from actual Ovi people. I certainly appreciate qgil pushing ideas/notes over to the Ovi team but they do seem a bit distant (and no, Forum Nokia is no better in that regard :) ). I personally find no incentive of having Open Source stuff on Ovi. I'd much rather see a better integration (improved Select if you wish) of Ovi and Extras without sacrificing what maemo.org already has and pushing Ovi into a place it maybe doesn't even really wants to go. Then again, if you have a good reason, I'm all ears :)

trollo

2009-11-24, 00:14

Having a quick look at the requirements, I see there is a requirement to provide email support and answer in 5 days. What price are applications expected to sell for on OVI store? At prices I think are likely to work there a single support email could easily involve more support costs than the entire price (to the user) of the application.

kryptoniankid17

2009-11-24, 00:31

"maemo.org" is not a legal entity and it's definitely not "practically part of Nokia". In case of problems, "maemo.org" is legally nobody and any liabilities would be directed to Nokia. This is what Ovi wants to avoid.

i agree with you as it would push your sonys and samsungs away. it has to stay open to other companies.

qgil

2009-11-24, 04:26

If you want to get official answers about Ovi publishing please ask the questions at http://wiki.maemo.org/Ovi_Store_publishing

Ovi and maemo.org coexist in our roadmaps, one being the face for "everybody" (default destination) and the other being a place for those willing to get involved in an open source community way.

Now, some OSS projects might be interested getting more exposure by being in Ovi in addition to (and not instead of) maemo.org Downloads.

Just like there might be commercial projects interested in maemo.org releases (in addition to their Ovi releases) in order to get user feedback or other forms of collaboration.

If nobody sees a point in using Ovi for OSS community apps then fair enough and one problem less. :)

GeneralAntilles

2009-11-24, 04:33

Now, some OSS projects might be interested getting more exposure by being in Ovi in addition to (and not instead of) maemo.org Downloads.

Isn't this why we have Maemo Select, though? This seems like an issue that Nokia should be solving by not heavily biasing how they advertise either distribution channel. In fact, I'd argue that all users should really see is the software (some free, some paid) and it shouldn't overly matter where it's coming from.

attila77

2009-11-24, 11:33

Ovi and maemo.org coexist in our roadmaps, one being the face for "everybody" (default destination) and the other being a place for those willing to get involved in an open source community way.

My question is why does this choice have to be made at the user level ? For developers, sure, but if downloading a calculator is "getting involved in the open source community way", that's a mighty big wall there.

If nobody sees a point in using Ovi for OSS community apps then fair enough and one problem less. :)

I don't see the point of marginalizing OSS community apps (being 'that other stuff'). If they aren't marginalized, why go to Ovi ? If they are, why bother with Extras ?

EDIT: Or, to put it another way (closer to what GA said), why do you think that applications in Extras are not for "everybody" ?

qgil

2009-11-24, 12:13

One assumption would be that by default users are lazy and if they find one place giving them everything relevant to them then they will prefer that over to having to search in two different places.

This is not an issue in the Application Manager but what about those preferring to browse normal web catalogs (a majority?)

It would be good to kknow the opinion of the developers of the most downloaded apps: http://maemo.org/downloads/downloads/Maemo5/25/

Would be OMWeather interested in showing up at http://store.ovi.com/search?q=weather

AlmostTI at http://store.ovi.com/search?q=calculator

FM Radio at http://store.ovi.com/search?q=radio

eCoach at http://store.ovi.com/search?q=outdoors

Countdown widget at http://store.ovi.com/search?q=countdown

etc

Maemo Select is useful to manage dozens of recommendation but what about the day when you have hundreds of OSS apps in maemo.org Downloads and hundreds in Ovi Store?

range

2009-11-24, 12:31

I'm really afraid to ask this, and it is probably a stupid question anyway--

but why is product liability an issue for Ovi.com, and not maemo.org?

In other words, why can a developer upload a particular app to Maemo Extras without needing insurance, but not Ovi?

I must be missing something truly profound here...

In case of non-open-source licenses, there might be an issue. Most free software licenses I know waive (is that the correct word here?) liability claims anyway.

Although I have no idea why you couldn't put that (not fit for any purpose, even if you think so) in your commercial license on ovi, too.

range

2009-11-24, 12:39

This is not an issue in the Application Manager but what about those preferring to browse normal web catalogs (a majority?)

Then make the Application manager more prominent on the tablet, so that people don't even look at webpages for finding applications but use the Application Manager? For me that is a rather unique selling point - no "App Stores", but a local application.

It would be good to kknow the opinion of the developers of the most downloaded apps: http://maemo.org/downloads/downloads/Maemo5/25/

Which then makes the other OSS applications second class citizens in an already fractured world (commercial apps via ovi vs. free apps via extras)? Why try to split the open source community?

Maemo Select is useful to manage dozens of recommendation but what about the day when you have hundreds of OSS apps in maemo.org Downloads and hundreds in Ovi Store?

Easy one. Try to find an automatic way to link to the packages in Extras through Ovi. This way every open source application which is in Extras gets exposure via ovi. This to me seems to be the only solution if ovi is supposed to be a/the one-stop-shop for the tablets.

attila77

2009-11-24, 12:41

Disclaimer: I'm not against Ovi. I just don't see a clear picture in how Ovi (Nokia?) wants to position itself with regard to OSS projects in Extras.

One assumption would be that by default users are lazy and if they find one place giving them everything relevant to them then they will prefer that over to having to search in two different places.

Two questions:

1. Why is it taken as granted they have to search in two different places without considering any collaboration between Extras and Ovi ? Again, sounds a bit like a variant of Select. I would not mind Ovi (semi-)automatically listing Extras projects. Is that unacceptable to the Ovi team ?

2. Why is it important then to have a strong and united Extras then ? A lot of effort has been put to making a Extras a better place for end users, and now it is suggested it makes no difference as most people will not go (or, rather, be directed) there anyway.

Maemo Select is useful to manage dozens of recommendation but what about the day when you have hundreds of OSS apps in maemo.org Downloads and hundreds in Ovi Store?

I guess that's why I suggested improving Select :rolleyes:

EDIT: When I say semi-automatically, I mean something as 'promote to Ovi' alongside of 'promote to Extras'.

Texrat

2009-11-24, 16:12

1. Why is it taken as granted they have to search in two different places without considering any collaboration between Extras and Ovi ? Again, sounds a bit like a variant of Select. I would not mind Ovi (semi-)automatically listing Extras projects. Is that unacceptable to the Ovi team ?

There is a simple beauty in that. :D

And it gets to my point about liability.

Let's envision this scenario:

A developer creates some nifty app he's willing to share for free. He uploads to Extras but would sure like it to be listed in Ovi as well. So there could be a feature represented by a checkbox that asks, in effect, "do you want this to be mirrored in Ovi?". If the developer checks yes, then his app is published in one place but shows up in two.

Attila, are we thinking along similar lines?

Of course, we're still left with the thorny "what if individual developers want to make money" issue but I think it's best to break this all down into edible chunks...

Anyway, is virtual representation of an app any different than physical representation in this sense? In other words, if Ovi mirrors stuff that's in Extras, without the developer being asked for insurance or other such obligations, is this somehow legally different than having the app actually hosted on the Ovi server?

I ask this rhetorically, but I can see Quim rushing at me with the "take these questions to the wiki" broom... ;)

attila77

2009-11-24, 17:40

Attila, are we thinking along similar lines?

Yes. If Select cannot be made the 'one place to choose them all', pushing things from Extras to Ovi must be dead simple and not a privilege or special hoopjumping operation.

Anyway, is virtual representation of an app any different than physical representation in this sense? In other words, if Ovi mirrors stuff that's in Extras, without the developer being asked for insurance or other such obligations, is this somehow legally different than having the app actually hosted on the Ovi server?

I ask this rhetorically, but I can see Quim rushing at me with the "take these questions to the wiki" broom... ;)

The really interesting thing is that Select is an official Nokia site pointing to particular Extras applications. IANAL, but if that's legally okay for Nokia, Ovi can't be too far.

benny1967

2009-11-24, 18:49

While it looks tempting to "mirror" Extras and have applications show up in Ovi Store as well, I still have my doubts about where this would end.

Ovi = controlled by Nokia
Extras = controlled by us

Both have rules. I don't know the differences now, but it's irrelevant as they may cange any time. The point is that whatever will be searched and found in Ovi will have to follow their guidelines for content. - If all publishers do and you're the only one with an application that they don't want... What will you do? Be happy in Extras? Sure, except nobody will come there anymore once everything is in the Ovi store, too.

It's not only a matter of technical feasibility and "what's easiest for the end user". It's also a matter of who's in control and what does it mean for the whole Maemo ecosystem in the long run.

(The worst case could be that once 98% of the free software can be found in Ovi Store and in Extras, the next SSU will remove the application manager as we know it because "Ovi Store is all we need and users can always use apt-get, anyway".)

qgil

2009-11-24, 19:49

As long as the Application Manager has the UI it has in Maemo 5, I understand perfectly users preferring to discover new software by browsing pages with screenshots, user ratings and comments instead of one liners with a "Details" dialog.

Having Extras as a proxy to publish in Ovi would bypass the current requirements to become an Ovi publisher. Ovi currently won't approve as publisher one registered individual, so they are consistent not willing to give direct publishing rights to a community of individual developers going through a different filter.

I'll say it again: maemo.org Downloads are enabled by default in our next Maemo 5 release and they are present in our roadmap. Let us complete this Maemo 5 release and sales start and we will go further sharing the Harmattan plans.

attila77

2009-11-24, 20:07

Having Extras as a proxy to publish in Ovi would bypass the current requirements to become an Ovi publisher. Ovi currently won't approve as publisher one registered individual, so they are consistent not willing to give direct publishing rights to a community of individual developers going through a different filter.

We understand that Ovi today isn't quite ready for individual (especially non-profit) developers. The question is/was if it WANTS to cater to that crowd in the future or not. If not, I don't see what the point of this topic is at all :)

(PS and yes, that question is already in the wiki as of earlier today :) )

Texrat

2009-11-24, 21:14

Having Extras as a proxy to publish in Ovi would bypass the current requirements to become an Ovi publisher. Ovi currently won't approve as publisher one registered individual, so they are consistent not willing to give direct publishing rights to a community of individual developers going through a different filter.

But Quim-- don't you see how this doesn't really resolve the main sticking point, ie, the legal constraints?

- developers cannot use maemo.org as a collective for publishing direct to Ovi, ergo they must form some sort of legal operating entity conforming to VAT, et al, requirements;

- developers CAN use maemo.org as an indirect way to publish to Ovi

How is it that maemo.org can absorb liability for the latter but not the former? Is it solely the potenial of profit that is the difference? If so then I don't get that...

qgil

2009-11-25, 10:32

This is not an aswer about Ovi, but a general concept to help understanding the problem. I'm also not a lawyer and I'm just trying to understand what I understood from reading/listening about this topic:

"Liability" is a tricky concept that has 3 axis:

- Sole individuals vs big corporations with the levels in between. If you are a sole individual then you probably are not very interesting target for a legal demand, while a big corp always is. If maemo.org is (from a legal perspective) nothing more than an aggregation of sole individuals then you see clearly what is the difference between maemo.org Downloads and Ovi by Nokia.

- Gratis vs paid. If you made milions out of something that is actually not even yours then you face different risks than someone that offers the same for free, even if it's also allegedly illegal. Since open source software is mostly gratis, this factor also helps getting it out of the usual areas of trouble.

- Software vs content. The Ovi store is not only a place to distribute apps, but also content. Digital content is in itself easier to copy, redistribute and consume. Nowadays there is a much bigger demand and business than in software itself. Again, open source software usually stays away from "blockbusters content" and frameworks like CreativeCommons are very good at defining who is the author and what can you do with the content.

Look at the combinations and you will see 2 extremes in terms of liability:

- Saucy company gets huge revenue publishing digital content for a price.

- Open source developer publishes software in his free time and all he gets is a Big Thank You.

I am willing to fight for the latter case if open source developers are indeed interested in publishing at Ovi. What I'm not doing is trying to convince you to do so. Either you are interested or not. There seems to be different opinions in the Brainstorm according to the votes, even if the discussion here seems to go more in one direction:

http://maemo.org/community/brainstorm/view/open_source_software_distributed_via_store-ovi-com/

kryptoniankid17

2009-11-27, 04:19

qgil

2009-11-27, 06:29

just look at symbian users. you've got to give the average users more credit.

Can you be more specific? There are millions of Symbian users out there and you can find all kins of behaviors in them.

richie

2009-11-27, 10:06

Look at the combinations and you will see 2 extremes in terms of liability:

- Saucy company gets huge revenue publishing digital content for a price.

- Open source developer publishes software in his free time and all he gets is a Big Thank You.

I am willing to fight for the latter case if open source developers are indeed interested in publishing at Ovi. What I'm not doing is trying to convince you to do so. Either you are interested or not. There seems to be different opinions in the Brainstorm according to the votes, even if the discussion here seems to go more in one direction:

http://maemo.org/community/brainstorm/view/open_source_software_distributed_via_store-ovi-com/

I think publishing free software on Ovi is worth fighting for, I can't see any negatives only benefits. If you agree users will tend to use one thing for apps, then whilst community apps in extras is ok, you need them in Ovi to reach a wider audience. It is just how these apps get on Ovi in addition to Extras. Speaking of which, I've voted for some solutions, but made a mistake with 1vote, can I undo votes?

Rich

kryptoniankid17

2009-11-27, 11:13

Can you be more specific? There are millions of Symbian users out there and you can find all kins of behaviors in them.

what im refering to is the average symbian users behavior of searching for apps. the ovi store in terms of symbian is extremily new. there really wasnt one place to go for apps. So symbian users pretty much have had to search multiple websites for what they've wanted

kryptoniankid17

2009-11-27, 11:18

I think publishing free software on Ovi is worth fighting for, I can't see any negatives only benefits. If you agree users will tend to use one thing for apps, then whilst community apps in extras is ok, you need them in Ovi to reach a wider audience. It is just how they get on Ovi in addition to Extras. Speaking of which, I've voted for some solutions, but made a mistake with 1vote, can I undo votes?

Rich

i just hope if or when other companies embrace maemo. we see the same push for their distribution systems.

attila77

2009-11-27, 12:24

you need them in Ovi to reach a wider audience

Let me ask you a (rather painful) question the other way around - what's the need for end-user friendly Extras, then ?

richie

2009-11-27, 18:55

Let me ask you a (rather painful) question the other way around - what's the need for end-user friendly Extras, then ?

I don't personally have all the answers. My post was in recognition that if Nokia want to use Ovi, then like Quim said, I think most regular users will prefer the way Ovi presents apps versus the app manager or using apt-get.

My preference is open source apps (versus commercial apps) and if Nokia want to use Ovi for Maemo then there is a danger that if a solution to getting individual devs to put apps on Ovi is not found, that many users may not even see the great free community apps on Extras.

I see Ovi as giving greater visibility, not destroying the work of Extras. Maybe Ovi will simply link to Extras anyway, both continue to exist, one serving the other.

Rich

Texrat

2009-11-27, 20:52

I'm left wondering how many of the sticky points we raise have already been discussed by stakeholders and decision-makers inside Nokia...

kryptoniankid17

2009-11-27, 23:28

I don't personally have all the answers. My post was in recognition that if Nokia want to use Ovi, then like Quim said, I think most regular users will prefer the way Ovi presents apps versus the app manager or using apt-get. My preference is open source apps (versus commercial apps) and if Nokia want to use Ovi for Maemo then there is a danger that if a solution to getting individual devs to put apps on Ovi is not found, that many users may not even see the great free community apps on Extras. I see Ovi as giving greater visibility, not destroying the work of Extras. Maybe Ovi will simply link to Extras anyway, both continue to exist, one serving the other.

Rich

I can agree with that. Maybe an app developed by the community is showcased but not downloaded from. Instead directing you to extras. Now i agree this would be the best route and not to discourage people into assuming its all about nokia.