Re: [Nix-dev] Packaging free software that costs money

On 11 July 2016 at 02:15, Nikolay Amiantov wrote: > [...] > What do you all think of adding "fhs-run" alias for the above derivation > and advertising this as the way to try when you need to run something > proprietary, quick and dirty? At least it's a good start. +1. Obviously :-D

Re: [Nix-dev] Packaging free software that costs money

On 07/06/2016 01:50 PM, Bjørn Forsman wrote: > One improvement we can do is making it easier to run pre-built > binaries. Right now you have to create a Nix file with > pkgs.buildFHSUserEnv and pass in a lot of data[1]. > > What if we write a script that creates an FHS environment from all >

Re: [Nix-dev] Packaging free software that costs money

On 16-07-08 01:58pm, Juho Östman wrote: >Basically, any distributor can require a payment, and if users are not >willing to pay, they would have to find some other way to obtain the >software. I think the idea is that people are generally okay to pay money, and if they are not, they

Re: [Nix-dev] Packaging free software that costs money

On 07/08/2016 11:47 AM, zimbatm wrote: > One approach that I didn't get discussed is: we could provide a wrapper > framework for paid applications. [...] That sounds more suitable to be put into a distribution-neutral library, and convince individual upstreams to use that way. --Vladimir

Re: [Nix-dev] Packaging free software that costs money

7.7.2016 7.25 pm Vladimír Čunát wrote: > > As mentioned, paying for freely-licensed SW (as accepted by FSF or OSI)  > is always possible but can *never* be forced (legally), so I don't think  > we should make it *appear* as obligatory.  > For GPL software, the rule is that it is

Re: [Nix-dev] Packaging free software that costs money

One approach that I didn't get discussed is: we could provide a wrapper framework for paid applications. Installing the app is as usual but the first time you run we would execute a script that asks for a donation. The script would check in a known place (like `~/.config/licenses/`) if a license

Re: [Nix-dev] Packaging free software that costs money

On 07/07/16 12:25, Vladimír Čunát wrote: > > As mentioned, paying for freely-licensed SW (as accepted by FSF or OSI) > is always possible but can *never* be forced (legally), so I don't think > we should make it *appear* as obligatory. > Yes, I think this is the right route. We can definitely

Re: [Nix-dev] Packaging free software that costs money

On 07/07/2016 03:36 PM, Christian Kauhaus wrote: > meta = { > support_url = "https://project.local/subscribe;; > }; Yes, I currently can't see anything better to do about this "issue" (or something similar). As mentioned, paying for freely-licensed SW (as accepted by FSF or OSI) is

Re: [Nix-dev] Packaging free software that costs money

On 07/07/16 13:15, Profpatsch wrote: > On 16-07-07 01:18am, Renato Alves wrote: >> To be honest I'm not even sure there's an issue here. I've never heard >> of something called "free open-source that costs money". The first part >> negates the second. > > That is incorrect. See

Re: [Nix-dev] Packaging free software that costs money

Am 07.07.2016 um 01:18 schrieb Renato Alves: > I don't think this issue concerns nix. I'd go into the same direction. A party is free to distribute libre software for money or not, but must grant other parties the same rights. Formally, we (NixOS) may get the source and redistribute it with our

Re: [Nix-dev] Packaging free software that costs money

On 16-07-07 01:18am, Renato Alves wrote: > To be honest I'm not even sure there's an issue here. I've never heard > of something called "free open-source that costs money". The first part > negates the second. That is incorrect. See https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html > Ardour was

Re: [Nix-dev] Packaging free software that costs money

2016-07-06 19:12 GMT+02:00 Jookia <166...@gmail.com>: > On Wed, Jul 06, 2016 at 06:46:11PM +0200, Profpatsch wrote: > > On 16-07-07 01:18am, Jookia wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 06, 2016 at 04:35:51PM +0200, Moritz Ulrich wrote: > > > Is it really Nix's job to enforcing the business models of

Re: [Nix-dev] Packaging free software that costs money

On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Bjørn Forsman wrote: > On 6 July 2016 at 14:19, Profpatsch wrote: >> $ nix-build -A ardour >> error: ardour is free as in freedom (GPL-2), but not free as in beer. >> The authors require a monthly payment of 10 USD to

Re: [Nix-dev] Packaging free software that costs money

On 07/06/2016 03:32 PM, Profpatsch wrote: > On 16-07-06 10:16pm, Roger Qiu wrote: >> I've been thinking about the mechanics of FOSS app stores. If you don't want >> to handle the payments, you need to implement a kind of >> payment-authentication, where the principle is the same as dealing with >>

Re: [Nix-dev] Packaging free software that costs money

The precedent I've seen in most other distributions (both Ubuntu and Arch in the case of Ardour) has been to just package it like any other GPL software. If that's not enough then I suppose a (somewhat ineffective) alternative would be to require a honor code flag that you've paid for it,

Re: [Nix-dev] Packaging free software that costs money

I have to agree with Jookia on this. I don't think this issue concerns nix. To be honest I'm not even sure there's an issue here. I've never heard of something called "free open-source that costs money". The first part negates the second. Ardour was mentioned but I can't find a single reference

Re: [Nix-dev] Packaging free software that costs money

On Wed, Jul 6, 2016, at 06:48 PM, Profpatsch wrote: > On 16-07-06 09:50am, Kevin Cox wrote: > > IIUC you can't "really require" money for a GPL program. You can charge > > for the distribution or for binaries or whatever you like, but nothing > > is stopping others from building and distributing

Re: [Nix-dev] Packaging free software that costs money

On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 12:10:41AM +0200, Profpatsch wrote: > No, but we should strife to enable developers however we can. Could we perhaps find a way to do this without requiring the user to lie about paying for something just to install something they don't need to pay for?

Re: [Nix-dev] Packaging free software that costs money

On 16-07-07 03:12am, Jookia wrote: > Is this going to be the Nix software store? No, but we should strife to enable developers however we can. We are only gathering stuff others gratiously provide us access to, after all. I think this goes further. Once we have e.g. donation info in nixpkgs, we

Re: [Nix-dev] Packaging free software that costs money

On Wed, Jul 06, 2016 at 06:46:11PM +0200, Profpatsch wrote: > On 16-07-07 01:18am, Jookia wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 06, 2016 at 04:35:51PM +0200, Moritz Ulrich wrote: > > Is it really Nix's job to enforcing the business models of software, rather > > than > > just packaging it? Surely the

Re: [Nix-dev] Packaging free software that costs money

On 16-07-06 09:50am, Kevin Cox wrote: > On 06/07/16 09:25, Bjørn Forsman wrote: > > On 6 July 2016 at 14:19, Profpatsch wrote: > IIUC you can't "really require" money for a GPL program. You can charge > for the distribution or for binaries or whatever you like, but nothing >

Re: [Nix-dev] Packaging free software that costs money

On 16-07-07 01:18am, Jookia wrote: > On Wed, Jul 06, 2016 at 04:35:51PM +0200, Moritz Ulrich wrote: > Is it really Nix's job to enforcing the business models of software, rather > than > just packaging it? Surely the application could just have a nag screen (if it > doesn't already.) How about

Re: [Nix-dev] Packaging free software that costs money

On Wed, Jul 06, 2016 at 04:35:51PM +0200, Moritz Ulrich wrote: > > Philip Carlsen writes: > > > Consider instead something like thks in nixpkgs config: > > ardour = { > > isPaid = true; > > } > > I like this approach. It's plain and simple. We just need to make sure > that

Re: [Nix-dev] Packaging free software that costs money

I'm interested. Free and proprietary software should be installed in the same way in my opinion. On 07/07/2016 12:27 AM, "Moritz Bartl" wrote: > On 07/06/2016 03:32 PM, Profpatsch wrote: > > On 16-07-06 10:16pm, Roger Qiu wrote: > >> I've been thinking about the

Re: [Nix-dev] Packaging free software that costs money

Philip Carlsen writes: > Consider instead something like thks in nixpkgs config: > ardour = { > isPaid = true; > } I like this approach. It's plain and simple. We just need to make sure that `nixos-rebuild` and `nix-env` display appropriate messages telling users how/where

Re: [Nix-dev] Packaging free software that costs money

Den 6. jul. 2016 2.19 PM skrev "Profpatsch" : > > On 16-07-06 11:58am, zimbatm wrote: > > We can provide the derivation but ask the user to download the source > > themselves. I think we already have such a mechanism in place for non-free > > software. > > But that’s not

Re: [Nix-dev] Packaging free software that costs money

On 06/07/16 09:25, Bjørn Forsman wrote: > On 6 July 2016 at 14:19, Profpatsch wrote: > > But that still looks like opt-in payment. I'm sure Ardour users > already know that upstream wants money for it, even without the above > mechanism. (But I guess if a lot of upstreams do

Re: [Nix-dev] Packaging free software that costs money

On 16-07-06 10:16pm, Roger Qiu wrote: > I've been thinking about the mechanics of FOSS app stores. If you don't want > to handle the payments, you need to implement a kind of > payment-authentication, where the principle is the same as dealing with > private packages. Instead the key being used is

Re: [Nix-dev] Packaging free software that costs money

On 16-07-06 11:58am, zimbatm wrote: > We can provide the derivation but ask the user to download the source > themselves. I think we already have such a mechanism in place for non-free > software. But that’s not necessary at all. The source is available openly and we can also have hydra build the

Re: [Nix-dev] Packaging free software that costs money

I've been thinking about the mechanics of FOSS app stores. If you don't want to handle the payments, you need to implement a kind of payment-authentication, where the principle is the same as dealing with private packages. Instead the key being used is a key that is derived from a successful

Re: [Nix-dev] Packaging free software that costs money

On 6 July 2016 at 12:50, Bjørn Forsman wrote: > On 6 July 2016 at 12:27, Profpatsch wrote: >> Free software doesn’t mean it is free as in free beer. >> >> There are a couple of (very good) applications, that are >> sold, like for example Ardour or

Re: [Nix-dev] Packaging free software that costs money

On 6 July 2016 at 12:27, Profpatsch wrote: > Free software doesn’t mean it is free as in free beer. > > There are a couple of (very good) applications, that are > sold, like for example Ardour or Radium. > They are normally distributed as binaries, but come with > the source

[Nix-dev] Packaging free software that costs money

Free software doesn’t mean it is free as in free beer. There are a couple of (very good) applications, that are sold, like for example Ardour or Radium. They are normally distributed as binaries, but come with the source code (as required by their license). I think nixpkgs should include them as