why is the "Proprietary" license-badge in the #ubuntu softwarecenter green?
I think the value here is to give a visual signal that free software is better. You don't need to mark proprietary software as 'red' or dangerous, but you can visually promote better choices.
So 'fix' is perhaps wrong. But, I think the visualization can be improved.
@ted @milan Sure, I understand why it's done. Now we start a conversation about defining "better". A bug ridden free software app is always "better" than a functional and beautiful proprietary one? We show the license type / text so users are empowered to make the choice. We don't judge. Putting a red mark implies "bad", and we didn't like that. (for the record, I filed the bug to get it changed from red to green)
@popey @milan certainty when you consider the entire product there is more to consider than just the license. But here we are just talking about the visualization of the license field. Which is a simpler discussion.
I would agree that making proprietary red isn't fair either, but the western values associated with green are 'good' and 'go', which is saying it something you should do or find positive.
@ted @milan I agree that they shouldn't be coloured at all, or should be neutral. We recently did a lot of design work on GNOME Software - much of which is submitted for review and discussion on the GS gitlab. We presented different ways to show these fields. We will never please the fanatical FSF subscriber, but we can allow users to make informed decisions.
@popey @ted @milan Its not about "judging" or empowering users at all. Its not colored upstream cause GNOME is principled, and its *following* its principles on the Software it creates. Software Freedom is a principle of GNOME. See Allan's post:
Canonical is a multi-million, for-profit conglomerate that wants to make money.
Clearly different goals there. The problem there is that in this context its not distinguished that this is *Ubuntu* software, not *GNOME* software.
What provides the "green" color is the "suggested-action" styleclass, and the "destructive-action" make it red accordingly.
It was designed that way upstream, cause its GNOME software and GNOME clearly has a stance on software licenses.
@popey @ted @milan
Patching the app downstream to always use the "green" color makes it so the styling is meaningless since its always the same. It brakes user expectations from the "suggested-action" styleclass widgets and leads to confusion and degrades the overall UX. This, in its current form, is clearly broken and needs to be fixed IMO.
Point being, if you want to downstream patch it to make it neutral, go ahead. But at least *don't* brake the UX of the app.
Server run by the main developers of the project It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!