Windows store for win32 apps



  • Hi,

    Since windows store can now have win32 apps using project centennial, what is to stop me packaging up an open source app, with a very minor tweak and publishing it as mine?

    I will even put a link to the original source code in the package readme somewhere.


  • sockdevs

    @Helix said in Windows store for win32 apps:

    what is to stop me packaging up an open source app, with a very minor tweak and publishing it as mine?

    :thinking:

    Your conscience?



  • @RaceProUK If he puts the source code along it as he suggests, wouldn't that be OK even with the spirit of the open source?

    (i.e. you're free to resell the software or whatever as long as the person you sell it to has access to the source code and origin)



  • @RaceProUK said in Windows store for win32 apps:

    Your conscience?

    pffftt!


  • sockdevs

    @remi Depends on the license. You could probably get away with it if the code is MIT or BSD licensed, but if it's GPL, good fudging luck.



  • @RaceProUK
    I believe it is within GPL v2
    and:

    "Yes. You can charge any fee you wish for distributing a copy of the program"



  • @Helix said in Windows store for win32 apps:

    what is to stop me packaging up an open source app, with a very minor tweak and publishing it as mine?

    I think there is something in the copyright law which might classify that as plagiarism.

    And nope. MIT/BSD/X11 licenses do not waive authorship. They even explicitly tell you to list the original authors.



  • @RaceProUK said in Windows store for win32 apps:

    @remi Depends on the license. You could probably get away with it if the code is MIT or BSD licensed, but if it's GPL, good fudging luck.

    What's the problem if it's GPL?



  • @boomzilla said in Windows store for win32 apps:

    What's the problem if it's GPL?

    besides GPL?



  • So this is the underpants gnomes version of 'How to put :poop:-ware Win32 apps in the Microsoft store' ?

    1. Crate GitHub repo of Opensource Project with changes that include a link back to GitHub repo.
    2. Publish on Microsoft Store
    3. ??? ??? ???
    4. Profit ???


  • @MathNerdCNU
    Exactly, if I create a process to do this automatically; users will have software which is neatly packaged from one convenient store front.

    Meanwhile I charge, say $2 for being the person that brings them such convenience.



  • @Luhmann said in Windows store for win32 apps:

    @boomzilla said in Windows store for win32 apps:

    What's the problem if it's GPL?

    besides GPL?

    Obviously.



  • @Helix This was exactly the business of a few Linux distro a while back, when people bought CDs and other physical supports. They'd sell the exact same open source packages that you could get from the web, except at the time that wasn't convenient so a few people did buy them -- and paid for the convenience, nothing else. As far as I remember, this was even applauded by the open source community as making Linux more accessible (to those without an internet access). Actually, this is essentially how the notion of distros started out, and how Red Hat made its name!

    So I think there should be absolutely 0 obstacle to doing that on an app store, the reasoning is for me exactly the same.

    Whether you'll actually make any money out of it is another question (*), but I don't see anything preventing you from trying.

    (*) especially given that, if it starts to work, many other people will do the same as the effort is minimal, contrary to physical medias that had to be produced and distributed, so did require some investment.


  • BINNED

    Wasn't the Windows Store plagued by paid wrappers around things like the installer for VLC in the early days? Doesn't seem too different to that



  • @Helix said in Windows store for win32 apps:

    Hi,

    Since windows store can now have win32 apps using project centennial, what is to stop me packaging up an open source app, with a very minor tweak and publishing it as mine?

    I will even put a link to the original source code in the package readme somewhere.

    I've highlighted the only part that might be illegal. Most (all?) open source licenses still prohibit you from changing the copyright notice and license. You can package an open source program and say "this is a package for XYZ that I've made", but you can't say, or most likely imply, that you own the copyright for the program itself.





  • Considering how many non-free emulators in Google Play are repackaged VBA or DeSmuME, and they haven't been taken down for years, there's nothing that stops you from doing exactly that.



  • I was thinking about the odd opensource apps i use and the worst things about ones i use most are:

    1. None or lousy mechanism to update to latest version
    2. Installer/app puts stuff everywhere and doesn't wipe up after itself on uninstall
    3. Installer installs app plus some adware

    I believe the sandboxing that project centennial does provides solution to issues 1 and 2, and users will trust 3 not to happen from windows store.



  • @remi said in Windows store for win32 apps:

    This was exactly the business of a few Linux distro a while back

    I still have my free Ubuntu CDs somewhere...



  • @Helix said in Windows store for win32 apps:

    None or lousy mechanism to update to latest version

    This has forever been a major Windows problem.



  • @Maciejasjmj Around here, most of the "free CDs" came when buying the magazine that produced them. So while the CDs itself were "free" (i.e. that issue of the magazine was not more expensive than other issues), you were still paying to get them...

    And I probably have a couple of them somewhere... I clean the computer-stuff closet from time to time, but given that I remember still having a box of floppies, I don't see why there shouldn't also be a couple of commercial Linux CDs in there as well...



  • @Helix said in Windows store for win32 apps:

    I was thinking about the odd opensource apps i use and the worst things about ones i use most are:

    1. None or lousy mechanism to update to latest version
    2. Installer/app puts stuff everywhere and doesn't wipe up after itself on uninstall
    3. Installer installs app plus some adware

    I believe the sandboxing that project centennial does provides solution to issues 1 and 2, and users will trust 3 not to happen from windows store.

    About (2). No. Remember, a win32-store app is a Full Trust app. It can write ANYWHERE on the system it wants to. If it stays within appdata and the registry (in other words, inside its sandbox), it will be fully cleansed on uninstall.



  • @Helix said in Windows store for win32 apps:

    Hi,

    Since windows store can now have win32 apps using project centennial, what is to stop me packaging up an open source app, with a very minor tweak and publishing it as mine?

    I will even put a link to the original source code in the package readme somewhere.

    People already did that in the play store. Look at 2048


  • sockdevs

    @Helix said in Windows store for win32 apps:

    trust 3 not to happen from windows store.

    0_1493214592191_mXyupD1.gif



  • @RaceProUK Redhat and Suse sell what is GPL software. Whether it is allowed via the terms and service is another thing.



  • @RaceProUK said in Windows store for win32 apps:

    @remi Depends on the license. You could probably get away with it if the code is MIT or BSD licensed, but if it's GPL, good fudging luck.

    GPL does not prevent you to package it or we won't have those .dpkg or .rpm files.

    It allows you to charge for redistribute it (presumably to cover the cost of redistribution) but you cannot sell license for it. (i.e.: You cannot sue people for gather the package and install without paying you)

    That's the deal.



  • @accalia In the sense that the 'install' basically just copies things to a directory, and can't do much else, it's perhaps 2% better than MSI at not doing random other stuff. You just have to put it in the same directory, and then have the main executable also launch your evil malware.

    Still, if it's even slightly harder to do, that's not a bad thing.



  • @Helix If it's GPL license, I believe that's perfectly ok. I'm not sure if GPLv3 contains anything to prevent that.

    It would also be perfectly ok if you put the software on CD or DVD.

    Note that despite their chosen license allowing it, they'd probably bitch and moan constantly about what you're doing if you're not "giving back enough." Hey idiots, if you wanted people to give back, maybe you picked a dumb software license.


  • sockdevs

    @Magus said in Windows store for win32 apps:

    @accalia In the sense that the 'install' basically just copies things to a directory, and can't do much else, it's perhaps 2% better than MSI at not doing random other stuff. You just have to put it in the same directory, and then have the main executable also launch your evil malware.

    Still, if it's even slightly harder to do, that's not a bad thing.

    so the shovelware install just happens on first run of the executable instead of on install from the app store.

    someone's still gonna do it, cheerfully and happily.


  • Impossible Mission Players - A

    @dcon said in Windows store for win32 apps:

    @Helix said in Windows store for win32 apps:

    I was thinking about the odd opensource apps i use and the worst things about ones i use most are:

    1. None or lousy mechanism to update to latest version
    2. Installer/app puts stuff everywhere and doesn't wipe up after itself on uninstall
    3. Installer installs app plus some adware

    I believe the sandboxing that project centennial does provides solution to issues 1 and 2, and users will trust 3 not to happen from windows store.

    About (2). No. Remember, a win32-store app is a Full Trust app. It can write ANYWHERE on the system it wants to. If it stays within appdata and the registry (in other words, inside its sandbox), it will be fully cleansed on uninstall.

    Someone quick! Package taskmgr.exe so I can lose that into Hololens!


  • :belt_onion:

    @Helix said in Windows store for win32 apps:

    what is to stop me packaging up an open source app

    Nothing is really stopping you, though IANAL.

    I would check with the original author of the software so that he won't go all defensive and start filing disputes. Then again, with some people it's easier to ask for forgiveness than to get permission.



  • @Tsaukpaetra You can only install apps onto platforms that support them. Afaik hololens is not Win32.



  • @remi said in Windows store for win32 apps:

    @Helix This was exactly the business of a few Linux distro a while back, when people bought CDs and other physical supports. They'd sell the exact same open source packages that you could get from the web, except at the time that wasn't convenient

    I know I installed Linux that way, about 15 years ago (SuSE 6.something, to be precise). Working out what you even need, downloading it all over an ISDN-2 line, and then making it work — or go to a store and buy one box with half a dozen CD-ROMs that come with a convenient installer program? I’ll pay at the counter rather than to the phone company, thanks.



  • @dcon said in Windows store for win32 apps:

    @Helix said in Windows store for win32 apps:

    I was thinking about the odd opensource apps i use and the worst things about ones i use most are:

    1. None or lousy mechanism to update to latest version
    2. Installer/app puts stuff everywhere and doesn't wipe up after itself on uninstall
    3. Installer installs app plus some adware

    I believe the sandboxing that project centennial does provides solution to issues 1 and 2, and users will trust 3 not to happen from windows store.

    About (2). No. Remember, a win32-store app is a Full Trust app. It can write ANYWHERE on the system it wants to. If it stays within appdata and the registry (in other words, inside its sandbox), it will be fully cleansed on uninstall.

    You are right but phrased it slightly wrong. The appdata and the registry it can write to are copies. The writes and reads are redirected. Other folders it touches are not redirected, that's true.



  • @marczellm said in Windows store for win32 apps:

    @dcon said in Windows store for win32 apps:

    @Helix said in Windows store for win32 apps:

    I was thinking about the odd opensource apps i use and the worst things about ones i use most are:

    1. None or lousy mechanism to update to latest version
    2. Installer/app puts stuff everywhere and doesn't wipe up after itself on uninstall
    3. Installer installs app plus some adware

    I believe the sandboxing that project centennial does provides solution to issues 1 and 2, and users will trust 3 not to happen from windows store.

    About (2). No. Remember, a win32-store app is a Full Trust app. It can write ANYWHERE on the system it wants to. If it stays within appdata and the registry (in other words, inside its sandbox), it will be fully cleansed on uninstall.

    You are right but phrased it slightly wrong. The appdata and the registry it can write to are copies. The writes and reads are redirected. Other folders it touches are not redirected, that's true.

    True. I was just writing that from the uninstall perspective. Life gets "interesting" if you have a database in localappdata and you switch from a desktop install to a winstore one. (We moved the DB in an app update just before the store version was released)



  • @blakeyrat said in Windows store for win32 apps:

    I'm not sure if GPLv3 contains anything to prevent that.

    And

    Patent Retaliation

    I actually think software patents are nonsense and that is quite a good clause. The thing is that most companies will just stick with GPLv2 / Apache or one of the other less restrictive OSS licenses.


  • Impossible Mission Players - A

    @Magus said in Windows store for win32 apps:

    Afaik hololens is not Win32.

    It most certainly is! :D Just that (apparently) only UWP libraries are installed. Kinda like Windows 10 Cloud, in that regard.

    The CPU is just an Atom cherry trail processor.



  • @Tsaukpaetra Oh, that's rather interesting. I wonder why...

    But at the same time, Win32 apps probably would need extra work to get them to display right.


  • Impossible Mission Players - A

    @Magus said in Windows store for win32 apps:

    Win32 apps probably would need extra work to get them to display right.

    Maybe. So long as it's DPI aware (:rofl:). Supposedly, UWP apps are supposed to be designed around tablet-sized windows, so :shrug:.

    Sadly, most desktop apps (rightly) assume mouse and keyboard, and so the experience is lackluster unless you have BT input devices hooked up...



  • @Magus said in Windows store for win32 apps:

    But at the same time, Win32 apps probably would need extra work to get them to display right.

    Of course. Because there's nothing special about going into the store that changes anything. At all. If DPI doesn't work in the desktop version, it won't work in the store version. What you do get is access to adding UWP features to the desktop app. (We're doing it by wrapping api calls behind a LoadLib'd dll)



  • @Gurth said in Windows store for win32 apps:

    SuSE 6.something, to be precise

    That's so precise.



  • @lucas1 said in Windows store for win32 apps:

    @blakeyrat said in Windows store for win32 apps:

    I'm not sure if GPLv3 contains anything to prevent that.

    Wikipedia article about Stallman being butthurt is the last place where I expected to find sharks with lasers.


  • Impossible Mission Players - A



  • @lucas1 said in Windows store for win32 apps:

    Tivoization

    How does "Tivoization", which by the way is probably the stupidiest term the open source community has ever come up with, address the scenario in this post? AFAIK that only applies to devices that have some form of DRM in their firmware to prevent new code from being added.

    @lucas1 said in Windows store for win32 apps:

    Patent Retaliation

    Again: what does this have to do with the scenario in the OP?


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @blakeyrat said in Windows store for win32 apps:

    @lucas1 said in Windows store for win32 apps:

    Tivoization

    How does "Tivoization", which by the way is probably the stupidiest term the open source community has ever come up with, address the scenario in this post? AFAIK that only applies to devices that have some form of DRM in their firmware to prevent new code from being added.

    @lucas1 said in Windows store for win32 apps:

    Patent Retaliation

    Again: what does this have to do with the scenario in the OP?

    Oh hey, I see you've met Lucas1...



  • @blakeyrat said in Windows store for win32 apps:

    @lucas1 said in Windows store for win32 apps:

    Tivoization

    "Tivoization", which by the way is probably the stupidiest term the open source community has ever come up with

    It's no worse than any other word derived from any company's name. Tivoization is like googling, except derived from Tivo instead of Google, and with -ation suffix rather than -ing.

    Edit: what's the HTML entity code for non-breaking hyphen?



  • @Gąska said in Windows store for win32 apps:

    Edit: what's the HTML entity code for non-breaking hyphen?

    @Gąska said in Windows store for win32 apps:

    googling

    :rolling_eyes:

    ‑ (or ‑ if you prefer hexadecimal)



  • @Zecc I wasn't even sure if such thing exists at all. Also, was on mobile.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @wft said in Windows store for win32 apps:

    @Helix said in Windows store for win32 apps:

    what is to stop me packaging up an open source app, with a very minor tweak and publishing it as mine?

    I think there is something in the copyright law which might classify that as plagiarism.

    And nope. MIT/BSD/X11 licenses do not waive authorship. They even explicitly tell you to list the original authors.

    I don't think plagiarism is actually covered in any way that isn't equivalent to copyright, trademark, or similar violations (in US law). You could publish Shakespeare's plays under your name and not have done anything illegal in the US, I believe. See, e.g., this:

    If you copy from a public domain writing, do you have to credit the author? The United States Supreme Court has answered “No,” holding that there is no legal requirement to provide any attribution when public domain works are copied and placed into new works. (Dastar Corp. v. 20th Century Fox Film Corp., 123 S.Ct. 2041 (2003).)

    However, just because there is no legal requirement to give credit to the creators of public domain works, that doesn’t mean you don’t have to do it. When copying works from the public domain, be careful to avoid plagiarism. Plagiarism occurs when someone poses as the originator of words he did not write, ideas he did not conceive, or facts he did not discover. Although you cannot be sued for plagiarizing a public domain work, doing so can result in serious professional and personal penalties. For example, in the case of college professors and journalists, it may result in termination; for students, it could lead to expulsion; if done by well-known historians, it can result in public humiliation.



  • @Gąska said in Windows store for win32 apps:

    @Zecc I wasn't even sure if such thing exists at all. Also, was on mobile.

    Unicode is like rule 34, if you can name it, it's already in the next version's draft.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.