Missing filter : free software only

[®om]

Binary package hint: software-center

In Software center, there is no filter "free software only".

ProblemType: Bug
DistroRelease: Ubuntu 10.10
Package: software-center 2.1.15
ProcVersionSignature: Ubuntu 2.6.35-19.28-generic 2.6.35.3
Uname: Linux 2.6.35-19-generic x86_64
NonfreeKernelModules: nvidia
Architecture: amd64
Date: Sun Sep 5 11:53:30 2010
EcryptfsInUse: Yes
InstallationMedia: Ubuntu 10.10 "Maverick Meerkat" - Beta amd64 (20100901.1)
PackageArchitecture: all
ProcEnviron:
 LANG=fr_FR.utf8
 SHELL=/bin/bash
SourcePackage: software-center

[Matthew Paul Thomas (mpt)]

If I read it correctly, the branch changes the two filter options to three: "All software", "Free Software", and "Canonical-Maintained Software". I see three issues with this.

First, we're in an environment where software developers have muddled the meaning of "free". USC offers both commercial and non-commercial software, and "free" is the only reasonable word to use for software where the price is zero. So in USC, to be as clear as possible, we use "free" only for zero price, and "open source" for the other meaning. I can imagine someone wanting to show only zero-price software, and that is what I assumed your code did -- right up until I got to line 420 of the diff and saw the 'if self.distro.get_license_text(component) != "Open source"'.

The second issue is that however the option was worded, it might imply that Canonical-Maintained Software is not open source, when almost all of it is (all except "restricted"). I'm not sure how to fix this, or whether I'm worrying over nothing. Any ideas?

Third, for any configuration option that exists, some proportion of people will twiddle it by mistake. Maybe their mouse slips while they're trying to do something else. Or maybe they try it just to experiment, and it seems to do nothing, so they don't bother to switch back. Almost all software available in USC currently is open source, so choosing the "Open Source" option wouldn't appear to do anything initially, but days or weeks later people would wonder why (for example) they couldn't see Beep. That doesn't mean the option shouldn't exist, but it does mean it should be obvious how to untwiddle it *from* the places where you're likely to fail because you twiddled it. For example, from search results. So, this needs a little more design work.

[Vadim Rutkovsky (roignac)]

Several suggestions on design for this switch.
1) We should add two switches here 'Free software' (zero-cost) and 'Open Source software'
2) In this case, we should slightly rename the menu item text - 'All software', 'Free Software only', 'Open Source software only' and 'Canonical-maintanied software only'. This wording and order will give the idea of which category is now selected
3) As far as I rememeber this will be much more easier to see in GTK3 version, so this should not really be a severe problem.

Any thoughts?

[David Ayers (ayers)]

The term "Gratis" unambiguously identifies zero-cost software, doesn't it?
I'd also prefer if the term "Free Software" were used to identify Free Software as referred in Ubuntu's mission statement:

"The vision for Ubuntu is part social and part economic: free software, available free of charge to everybody on the same terms, and funded through a portfolio of services provided by Canonical."
http://www.ubuntu.com/project/about-ubuntu

If you must refer to Open Source, I'd suggest considering using the term "OSI Certified License" and refer to:
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/index.html

[David Ayers (ayers)]

I have a few more comments to address the previous reasoning:

I have partially already addressed this but to make it clear: USC can help address the muddling of the environment by simply differentiating between freedom and price. I.e. classify packages as "Gratis" vs. "$PRICE" in one field and differentiating between Free Software (or OSI-Certified if you must) and Proprietary in another field, as is already the case. Allow filters to be defined on each field separately. Active Filters can prominently indicated visually with an easy "Remove all Filters" UI-Element.

I would also like to observe that, ignoring the content offerings, currently USC advertises two proprietary applications in the banner, five proprietary applications in "what's new" and another proprietary application as a suggestion vs. 24 'Open Source' applications. So a quarter of the front page offering software offering is proprietary software.