Weekly Edition
Return to the Development page
| |||||||||||||
Mozilla's web app store debuts in Firefox for AndroidMozilla has enabled its "Firefox Marketplace" web app store on the latest Aurora release of Firefox for Android. Aurora is the development branch of Firefox, so this is definitely a "soft" launch, but it does give developers and users a taste of Mozilla's recent work on Web APIs. Anyone can survey the goods in stock at the marketplace by visiting marketplace.mozilla.org, but installation requires Firefox for Android. (Log in to post comments)
Disappointing Posted Oct 19, 2012 16:49 UTC (Fri) by paravoid (subscriber, #32869) [Link]
There's no copyright license or free (as in speech) indication shown for the apps, nor a "download source" link (if there are any that are free). I guess it shouldn't suprise me, considering Mozilla Addons is in a similar state and Mozilla is distancing itself from the FL/OSS community more and more as time passes, in favor of the "open web" community that they've helped build.
Disappointing Posted Oct 19, 2012 17:40 UTC (Fri) by KaiRo (subscriber, #1987) [Link]
Please get your facts straight.
Mozilla Add-ons has a license link there for every add-on, you cannot submit an add-ons without declaring what license it is. I know there are options to make the source available there, but I don't know the details there, AFAIK I have links in the descriptions of my own add-ons that point to my repos, as the internal option would just display the source in the form it is in the packages.
Unfortunately, this is not the case right now on the Marketplace, and I'd encourage you to file a bug on that (or two, on both aspects). Still, as the apps in the Marketplace are all HTML5, you should be able to just use your browser's "View Source" function to get to that.
Also, how do you think that "open web" means distancing from FLOSS? Both heavily concentrate on open standards and software under free software licenses. Mozilla is pushing heavily for open standards, processes and software, if you have a different impression I'd like to know why and how Mozilla can improve there.
Disappointing Posted Oct 19, 2012 17:59 UTC (Fri) by paravoid (subscriber, #32869) [Link]
I'm aware that Mozilla Addons require a license and I also do know that the Addons webpage does list the license, although in tiny letters on the side, showing no emphasis on freedom. Do note that this not the case for the in-browser addon search (Tools -> Addons -> Get Addons), which hides this information as far as I can see. Moreover, there's no way to do search only in the subset of addons that are free as in speech, in neither interfaces. Free and non-free software are equivalent in there and users will just pick what looks fancier, without anyone ever educating them about their freedoms.
You are right that I should file bug reports, however I do think that this is not an error in passing but rather a deliberate choice on Mozilla's side. Sticking to your principles has a cost and makes you less popular to average joe who doesn't care about such things (at least that's what he thinks). That's not entirely guesswork: I've pointed out the addons issues above to a Mozilla person before (granted, not *the* person responsible for it) and I was basically told "meh, wontfix". But yes, this probabl belongs on a bug tracker, you're absolutely right.
As for "it's HTML5, just do View Source", please get *your* facts straight. If there's no clear copyright license, or the copyright license is not a free software license, it's a copyright violation to even study the code (modulo rights to reverse engineer that exist in many countries), let alone modify it for your needs and redistribute it. I hope you're not suggesting to take e.g. the Twitter "app" and derive an identi.ca one from it :)
It might be unfair to judge Mozilla for the lack of free software advocacy. However, as Mozilla is moving more from just being a software author and to the software distributor realm, I think we have to adhere it to Linux distros standards and criticize them for not having a clear stance on that.
As for the "open web" vs. FL/OSS, I think moves such as the Marketplace one are problematic to me, a free software zealot. Also see my previous LWN comment on B2G:
Disappointing Posted Oct 20, 2012 15:18 UTC (Sat) by salimma (subscriber, #34460) [Link] As for "it's HTML5, just do View Source", please get *your* facts straight. If there's no clear copyright license, or the copyright license is not a free software license, it's a copyright violation to even study the code (modulo rights to reverse engineer that exist in many countries), let alone modify it for your needs and redistribute itNot to mention that, for performance reason as well as obfuscation, a lot of web apps will likely have passed through an optimizing Javascript compiler and thus the result will not exactly be human-readable code
Disappointing Posted Oct 22, 2012 3:10 UTC (Mon) by butlerm (subscriber, #13312) [Link]
> If there's no clear copyright license, or the copyright license is not a free software license, it's a copyright violation to even study the code
That is one of the most preposterous things I have ever heard. Perhaps you could tell us which of the exclusive rights enumerated in 17 USC 106 is implicated by merely "studying the code":
"(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
Disappointing Posted Oct 22, 2012 4:17 UTC (Mon) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]
> Perhaps you could tell us which of the exclusive rights enumerated in 17 USC 106 is implicated by merely "studying the code":
17 USC 106 is generally not held in especially high regard by courts outside the US. Is it a right guaranteed by Berne?
Disappointing Posted Oct 22, 2012 11:35 UTC (Mon) by nye (guest, #51576) [Link]
>> Perhaps you could tell us which of the exclusive rights enumerated in 17 USC 106 is implicated by merely "studying the code":
> 17 USC 106 is generally not held in especially high regard by courts outside the US. Is it a right guaranteed by Berne?
I can't believe there's any dispute here. The right to look at a copyrighted work is so obviously not exclusive to the copyright holder that your diversion is completely absurd.
Disappointing Posted Oct 20, 2012 0:25 UTC (Sat) by kripkenstein (subscriber, #43281) [Link]
> There's no copyright license or free (as in speech) indication shown for the apps
Any app can add in its description what license it has. There doesn't seem to be a special field for it though, that's true, not sure if intentional or a temporary limitation. But the app store is not meant just for open source apps but for all web content that uses open standards.
I wouldn't say that's distancing from the open source community. The fact is, if you want a YouTube app, a Twitter app, a Facebook app, and so forth, none of those are open source, but they are the natural first apps for something like this.
The app store isn't like the addons site or say the mozilla demo studio
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/demos/
which does have a space for a FOSS license to be written. The app store is for web content in general, it just has to be standards-compliant.
Disappointing Posted Oct 21, 2012 18:34 UTC (Sun) by donbarry (guest, #10485) [Link]
I also wouldn't say that it's "distancing from the open source community." What it *is* distancing from is the *free software* community, which takes issues such as the rights of software users seriously. This is a prime example of the corrosive influence that the opportunist Johnny Come Latelys of the OSI have engendered on the older and more principled Free Software movement.
It is quite clear that Mozilla, in not addressing these issues from the start, cares little for them. Software design involves balancing and prioritizing. The key decisions are visible in the earliest products.
Mozilla, dependent on hundreds of millions of dollars in kickbacks from Google at this moment (and with little in the way of additional revenue streams) is a victim in many ways of past largesse, and is trapped in and fearful of loss of that revenue stream. It has begun to color every decision they make.
Disappointing Posted Oct 21, 2012 18:42 UTC (Sun) by kripkenstein (subscriber, #43281) [Link]
As someone that works at Mozilla, that description of it sounds very, very inaccurate.
Yes, there are efforts to maintain revenue, even though Mozilla is a nonprofit. Without revenue, we can't pay salaries for people to focus fulltime on Mozilla-related projects. But does it "color every decision" though? Hardly, for example one of the major Mozilla projects these days is B2G, which one might suspect could annoy Google (as a potential competitor for Android) and risk the revenue stream. Pushing hard on B2G is the opposite of playing it safe and maintaining the existing income. But it is still the right thing to do because it has a shot at promoting openness on the web in the mobile space, which is a matter of *principle*.
Mozilla's web app store debuts in Firefox for Android Posted Oct 19, 2012 18:44 UTC (Fri) by robert_s (subscriber, #42402) [Link]
Is this decade's Zawinski's law that all systems will expand until they have an "App Store"?
Sending email or having an app store Posted Oct 20, 2012 14:02 UTC (Sat) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Just copying the latest successful paradigm; looks sensible to me. (Email was probably the killer app of the internet before the web.)But in Mozilla's case it makes double sense: if Mozilla BootToGecko is going to power smartphones in a few years (as the core of the OpenWebDevice), then it is not too soon to start stockpiling apps. App stores were surely the killer app of the smartphone (in a recursive sense, since they enabled downloading other apps). Everyone seems to measure platform success by the number of apps, wrong as it may be.
Mozilla's web app store debuts in Firefox for Android Posted Oct 19, 2012 18:51 UTC (Fri) by wertigon (guest, #42963) [Link]
I wonder when there will be an universal "App Store" protocol that lets you set up your own repository and then you can download through your favorite store, be that itunes, steam, Google Play or whatever else...
Mozilla's web app store debuts in Firefox for Android Posted Oct 19, 2012 19:11 UTC (Fri) by BenHutchings (subscriber, #37955) [Link]
I think I need an App Store Store from which to choose my App Store.
Mozilla's web app store debuts in Firefox for Android Posted Oct 19, 2012 22:59 UTC (Fri) by debacle (subscriber, #7114) [Link]
Build your app store (used to be "repository") with `reprepro` and let users download their apps (used to be "packages") with `apt-get`, maybe?
Mozilla's web app store debuts in Firefox for Android Posted Oct 20, 2012 13:57 UTC (Sat) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Repository is fundamentally different from App Store. App Store makes it possible for the different competing parties to upload stuff. Even if there are review process (as in Apple's App Store) it looks on each app in isolation (sometimes Apple decides not to permit the app when it's competes with offers from Apple itself, but of course this is an aberration, not something to celebrate). Repository tries to create coherent whole from the disparate packages. It's easy see the difference: you can install apps from dozens of App Stores on Android - and the phone will work like a phone in the end, but try to mix dozens of random PPAs - and you can easily reach the state where the result will refuse to even boot. P.S. Of course it's entirely possible to offer examples of conflicting applications for Android and it's possible to show dozen of PPAs which don't conflict. This is about principle, not about the details: App Stores are designed to offer random software from random vendors which you can install without thinking—and sometimes it fails while repository offers coherent whole and is not designed to be mixed with other repositories—although sometimes you can do that if you are lucky.
Mozilla's web app store debuts in Firefox for Android Posted Oct 21, 2012 22:03 UTC (Sun) by hummassa (subscriber, #307) [Link]
The same thing you describe happens happily with some application combos on Apple's AppStore (when you reach the 300 on the number of apps installed, your risk of mixing unmixable apps is increased) and on Google Play Apps. I have had to uninstall one or other apps that made such effect and in one occasion, I had to reinstall the whole stack on my iPhone 3G.
Mozilla's web app store debuts in Firefox for Android Posted Oct 22, 2012 16:05 UTC (Mon) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Sure, but to reach that state you need to install hundreds applications. And similarly with Firefox addons. In case of repos you don't need to install anything: add few PPAs, type "apt-get dist update; apt-get dist upgrade" and get your system completely hosed up.
Mozilla's web app store debuts in Firefox for Android Posted Oct 21, 2012 17:45 UTC (Sun) by wertigon (guest, #42963) [Link]
Yeah, something like APT, with three important differences;
1. Must be able to upload apps, or media files, or whatever through a review process
If someone would develop that protocol all of a sudden a good chunk of power comes back to us consumers/users. :)
Mozilla's web app store debuts in Firefox for Android Posted Oct 23, 2012 6:22 UTC (Tue) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link]
'Apps' are a subset of packages because they must be self-contained and installable without affecting anything else on the system. /bin/sh cannot be an app.
It would be cool to define 'app guidelines' for dpkg and rpm packages - the package must install to a few standard directories only, must not contain preinstall or postinstall scripts or suid binaries, etc - and then perhaps additionally run these packages in their own sandbox as Ubuntu is planning. Then while only root can install packages in general, ordinary users could install 'app packages'.
Mozilla's web app store debuts in Firefox for Android Posted Oct 23, 2012 8:48 UTC (Tue) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Good offer. Now you've reached (at least in your mind) the state of oh-so-hostile-and-non-free Apple's AppStore. To make something like Android's AppStore reality you need to develop good sandboxing (and accompanying set of permissions) first. It's true that repos and AppStores are two points in the same continuum, but [contrary to the common belief] repos are years behind in the direction which matters. This is the same story again and again: geek community solves 99% of the problem, and then stops. Years later commercial company solves the same problem 100% (and thus makes it available for Joe Averages) and geeks howl: "WTF, we had this for years". No, you didn't. Here is another example: think remote access. Unix (and Linux) had it from the start (because of network transparency). But… the most common scenario Joe Average may need is pretty simple: it's waaay too late, I'm still on the work, I want to go home and finish the work from there. Can I somehow reach these windows I have opened on my desktop right now? Windows got the answer in 2001 (with Windows XP) and it worked fine ever since. Linux... still does not have a satisfying answer. Some distributions offer VNC-based solutions (which are not as capable because anyone who's still in office can interfere), but venerable X with all it's "network transparency" claims is still not usable for that.
Mozilla's web app store debuts in Firefox for Android Posted Oct 23, 2012 9:55 UTC (Tue) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link]
Agreed. Another thing that matters is binary compatibility. For years we in the free software world tried to convince ourselves that binary compatibility didn't matter (Mark Shuttleworth explicitly disclaimed the idea of 'compatibility at the level of binary blobs'), but it does. Otherwise, third party 'app' developers have no way to be sure their work won't be capriciously broken by some later update. Miguel went into this in his blog post which you may have already read: http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2012/Aug-29.html
Mozilla's web app store debuts in Firefox for Android Posted Oct 26, 2012 13:01 UTC (Fri) by juliank (subscriber, #45896) [Link]
Right, but we can't really get rid of postinst scripts currently, as we need to do stuff like rebuilding icon caches. A solution would be declarative scripts which can be checked for correctness; or converting thus things to triggers (and equivalents on non-deb systems).
Mozilla's web app store debuts in Firefox for Android Posted Oct 26, 2012 15:31 UTC (Fri) by debacle (subscriber, #7114) [Link]
Yes, for most packages having a full root shell in {pre,post}{rm,install} is not necessary anyway. Everything that is generated by dh (dh_icons, dh_installmenu, dh_installmime, ...) could be turned into triggers or similar.
|
|||||||||||||