Microsoft Updates Store Rules To Ban Paid Copycat Open-Source Projects (ghacks.net) 37
Microsoft updated the Microsoft Store policies yesterday to prohibit publishers from charging fees for software that is open source or generally available for free. They're also no longer allowed to set irrationally high price tags for their products. gHacks reports: If you have been to the Microsoft Store in the past couple of years, you may have noticed that it is home to more and more open source and free products. While that would be a good thing if the original developer would have uploaded the apps and games to the store, it is not, because the uploads have been made by third-parties. Even worse is the fact that many of these programs are not freely available, but available as paid applications. In other words: Microsoft customers have to pay money to buy a Store version of an app that is freely available elsewhere. Sometimes, free and paid versions exist side by side in the Store. Having to pay for a free application is bad enough, but this is not the only issue that users may experience when they make the purchase. Updates may be of concern as well, as the copycat programs may not be updated as often or as quickly as the source applications.
Open source and free products may not be sold anymore on the Microsoft Store, if generally available for free, and publishers are not allowed to set irrationally high price tags for their products anymore. The developers of open source and free applications may charge for their products on the Microsoft Store, the developer of Paint.net does that, for example. If Microsoft enforces the policies, numerous applications will be removed from the Store. Developers could report applications to Microsoft before, but the new policies give Microsoft control over application listings and submissions directly.
Open source and free products may not be sold anymore on the Microsoft Store, if generally available for free, and publishers are not allowed to set irrationally high price tags for their products anymore. The developers of open source and free applications may charge for their products on the Microsoft Store, the developer of Paint.net does that, for example. If Microsoft enforces the policies, numerous applications will be removed from the Store. Developers could report applications to Microsoft before, but the new policies give Microsoft control over application listings and submissions directly.
yeah but.. (Score:3, Insightful)
As much as I hate the store being full of crapware which is open source software, this policy makes no sense. For example, Ubuntu is a version of free software (Debian). If Ubuntu wanted to charge for the enormous amount of work they put into their distro, they should have the right to.
Similarly, just because a free open source program exists somewhere, doesn't mean that the version in the store hasn't had a lot of work done to it to bring it up to snuff, and work done to release regular updates.
Now I'll grant you, a lot of this crapware is thrown together, and not updated, but do we want to throw the baby out with the bathwater?
Plus how are they going to prove if a program is a version of a free one? Not all free software requires attribution, so this will be guesswork at best.
In my opinion, Microsoft needs a better thought out plan to derank and/or eliminate the crap... one that doesn't single out free software for special treatment.
Re: (Score:3)
do we want to throw the baby out with the bathwater?
There is no baby there.
Re: (Score:2)
If Ubuntu wanted to charge for the enormous amount of work they put into their distro, they should have the right to.
Assuming the summary is correct, then Canonical would be able to charge if they would like to do so. You and I, on the other hand, would not be able to sell Ubuntu there, which brings up a great big hole in the new policy: it is perfectly valid to resell Free and Open Source software. The most typical use of this is to package, sell, and support said FOS software.
This policy is throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
Re: (Score:2)
Is there an exception for the original publisher? I didn't see that bit - it sounded like *nobody* could sell a product that was distributed freely via other channels.
As for throwing out the baby with the bathwater?
Nothing about not being able to set a non-zero price for free software in the store prevents users from making voluntary contributions - exactly as most Free software has always gotten their funding. If the store supports in-app purchases or DLC, you could even sell a range of appreciative wallp
Aseprite went non-free to charge for binaries (Score:2)
I don't think I've *ever* seen a legit FOSS project try to charge for their product up front
The closest I've seen is making newer versions of a product non-free so that the developer can charge for binaries. Aseprite is a well-known example of this.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. Even more often I've seen (mostly) single-author FOSS have the few contributions stripped out and turned proprietary - usually as a result of disgust at the number of scammers selling rip-offs of their work.
Re: (Score:2)
Kudos to them if they allow it, but that's not what
the policy itself (10.8.7) [microsoft.com] says.
Re: (Score:3)
As much as I hate the store being full of crapware which is open source software, this policy makes no sense.
it's the store what makes no sense. who in his sane mind would use that on a pc to begin with? it is not a walled garden mac or iphone whose users have no other option. for pc there's free and paid software for virtually any purpose on the web, from original or reputable sources and most of it with user friendly install procedures for windows. microsoft store users are the lowest denominator of a generation of users that's in itself long obsolete: beyond help.
Re: (Score:2)
Because it's extremely convenient to have your software installed and updated from a central repository.
While there are legitimate sources of software on the web, there are also thousands of dubious sites looking to scam gullible users - either by selling them software they could otherwise have obtained for free with no added value, or in some cases just blatantly providing malware. Users don't want the hassle of having to check the legitimacy of the website and the files downloaded from it, nor do they wan
Re: (Score:2)
you're right. i'd argue that a market place and a package manager are conceptually different things besides being technically equivalent, but indeed the difference has been blurred more and more. then again i would be fine using e.g. ubuntu's software center even if it is called "app store" because i know that 99% of its content is actually the same curated packages every other linux distro has, but anything named "micro$oft $tore" would simply be a huge red flag.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, not *quite* technically equivalent - strictly speaking an app store is a superset of a package manager: it does everything a package manager does PLUS allows for purchasing packages that are not freely available.
Honestly, as much as I dislike Microsoft, and as suspicious as I am that they'll try to leverage this into a walled garden once people get used to it - an officially endorsed package manager is still something Windows has been sorely missing for a very long time, and I'm glad to see it.
Given
Re: (Score:3)
So what's the alternative?
Who, exactly, out of the potentially hundreds or thousands of contributors, should be allowed to sell a version of an open source product?
To use your own example, why should Canonical be allowed to sell Ubuntu, but not The GNU Foundation, who probably own copyright to a much larger portion of the Ubuntu code base?
If you're going to ban anyone from selling binaries, it rapidly becomes a huge headache to decide who exactly the exceptions are.
I suppose you could have the owner of the
Re: yeah but.. (Score:1)
There is nothing stopping you from buying support services from Ubuntu or their partners. I believe a lot of professionals and institutions do that already. Or donate $50 to VLC if you like.
Re: (Score:2)
Ridiculous rule (Score:2)
It takes a lot of effort to deal with these online stores, provide support for users, respond to comments, deal with all the 1 star ratings for all the esoteric one off issues, handling the ever-changing store mostly undocumented rules etc.
Charging on stores compensates for the time and effort spend - be it open source or not.
Re: (Score:2)
You can charge for your own software. They don't want you charging for what someone can and should get for free. This is unusually benevolent and we shouldn't shit on it. It suggests a higher than normal level of curation.
Re: (Score:2)
>This is unusually benevolent and we shouldn't shit on it.
Agreed.
>It suggests a higher than normal level of curation.
Not necessarily. It could just be setting the stage for Microsoft to easily confirm and ban any "scamware" complaints without giving the seller any contractual recourse. Though I suppose even a strictly reactive policy results in curation for future customers.
The policy itself (10.8.7) [microsoft.com] doesn't appear to carve any exception for selling your own FOSS, so kudos to them if they allow it -
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Also on Windows and Epic stores, as listed right alongside the free download on the official site: https://krita.org/en/download/... [krita.org]
There's definitely a good argument for allowing the original publisher to charge for the software as a convenient method to collect donations, and to cover the costs of "approved" code signing certificates and jumping through store hoops.
However, since the overwhelming majority of charged-for-FOSS in app stores is actually third party scammers looking for easy money, often with
Re: Steam still does it... (Score:1)
I believe it is work of Krita team themselves to generate income for the project.
Sounds odd (Score:1)
I almost wonder if this is an attempt to hit open source as this policy seems to unfairly disadvantage it.
Stallman never said you could not charge for OSS (Score:5, Informative)
Only that, charging or no charging, you shall make source available...
" Many people believe that the spirit of the GNU Project is that you should not charge money for distributing copies of software, or that you should charge as little as possible—just enough to cover the cost. This is a misunderstanding.
Actually, we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can."
Citation needed?
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy... [gnu.org]
It goes further: ;-)
"If a license does not permit users to make copies and sell them, it is a nonfree license. If this seems surprising to you, please read on."
If you find that surprising, I already gave you the link, read on
Re: (Score:3)
Just cause the license allows it doesn't mean Microsoft has to.
There is nothing of value being lost here.
Re: (Score:2)
Just cause the license allows it doesn't mean Microsoft has to.
True.
There is nothing of value being lost here.
Tell that to the guys/gals who tried to make a honest living taking FOSS code, compiling it into a well running state, shapping it up for MS-Store rules/regulation/quirks and supporting it, that now can't...
Re: (Score:3)
Tell that to the guys/gals who tried to make a honest living taking FOSS code, compiling it into a well running state, shapping it up for MS-Store rules/regulation/quirks and supporting it, that now can't..
Care to cite a single example?
Re: (Score:2)
Too busy shapping
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed.
As I recall, the rationale behind allowing paid versions of GPL software was to remove any legal concerns about charging distribution fees to cover costs, or bundling into commercial products (hardware or software). Without that the legal department would never have okayed the Linux distro that runs your TV, your phone, your internet router, etc.
Any derivative work that actually adds something of value is going to take credit rather than posing as the original product. The only ones to do that are
RMS never said you can't charge for free software (Score:2)
GPL and selling open source softare.... (Score:2)
Or, as we say in English: (Score:2)
While that would be a good thing if the original developer had uploaded the apps and games to the store
That's fine but... (Score:2)
Their policy should also include: NOT CHARGING A FEE TO LIST IN THE STORE.
Also they should restrict it to only projects where installable binaries are available for free, not just source code. There are plenty of paid for open source programs out there.
They stole together (Score:2)
They happily got their 30% cut from stolen intellectual property until today. This happens since Windows 8. Not just that, non technical people got robbed too.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not stolen, just unethically profited from.
The license (GPL and most other FOSS licenses) explicitly allows for third parties to sell the software - mostly to remove any legal concerns about recouping redistribution costs (floppy disks and CDs were the normal distribution channels at the time) or bundling with commercial products (otherwise the legal team would never allow Linux to be used in your TV, router, coffeemaker, etc).
Business Process Automation Software Development (Score:1)