I'm glad Krita is in the MS store, and I'm glad they charge for it. I'm glad the team is earning money from Windows users who value convenience, security vetting, and automatic updates over the...
I'm glad Krita is in the MS store, and I'm glad they charge for it. I'm glad the team is earning money from Windows users who value convenience, security vetting, and automatic updates over the expenditure of a few dollars. That said, since this is Free (as in speech) Software, I firmly believe MS has a moral obligation (and I thought a legal one?) to clearly mark the availability of the source code. And if the Krita team chooses to distribute free binaries from that site as well, that is absolutely none of Microsoft's business.
I don't think this has anything to do with the GNU license or the fact it's free software. I think this is entirely to do with the link to their site in the description, saying "you can download...
I don't think this has anything to do with the GNU license or the fact it's free software. I think this is entirely to do with the link to their site in the description, saying "you can download it for free here:" Their argument seems to be that you're not allowed to tell people they can or should install software from outside the windows store, so they want krita to remove the URL to the download link.
This doesn't seem to be in their policies anywhere, they seem to be severely misreading their own terms and conditions. It says "If your app includes in-app purchases, subscriptions, virtual currency, billing functionality or captures financial information, the following requirements apply: [...] Your app may promote or distribute software only through the Microsoft Store."
That doesn't seem to apply to krita, and doesn't seem to apply to the description section, only inside the app itself. So, this doesn't actually seem to be in their policy anywhere, but krita has to abide by it anyway.
I would argue against such broad generalizations. This is the decision of a few people working in the Windows Store team. The people inside Microsoft working on TypeScript, Helm, Kubernetes,...
I would argue against such broad generalizations.
This is the decision of a few people working in the Windows Store team.
The people inside Microsoft working on TypeScript, Helm, Kubernetes, OpenSSH, VS Code, and who knows how many other OSS projects definitely show that Microsoft as a whole is moving to a more open, free model.
TL;DR: Krita gets slapped by Microsoft for mentioning that their software is open source and can be acquired for free at their website.
I'm glad Krita is in the MS store, and I'm glad they charge for it. I'm glad the team is earning money from Windows users who value convenience, security vetting, and automatic updates over the expenditure of a few dollars. That said, since this is Free (as in speech) Software, I firmly believe MS has a moral obligation (and I thought a legal one?) to clearly mark the availability of the source code. And if the Krita team chooses to distribute free binaries from that site as well, that is absolutely none of Microsoft's business.
I don't think this has anything to do with the GNU license or the fact it's free software. I think this is entirely to do with the link to their site in the description, saying "you can download it for free here:" Their argument seems to be that you're not allowed to tell people they can or should install software from outside the windows store, so they want krita to remove the URL to the download link.
This doesn't seem to be in their policies anywhere, they seem to be severely misreading their own terms and conditions. It says "If your app includes in-app purchases, subscriptions, virtual currency, billing functionality or captures financial information, the following requirements apply: [...] Your app may promote or distribute software only through the Microsoft Store."
That doesn't seem to apply to krita, and doesn't seem to apply to the description section, only inside the app itself. So, this doesn't actually seem to be in their policy anywhere, but krita has to abide by it anyway.
Another argument against the claim that Microsoft supports open-source software more than they did in the past.
I would argue against such broad generalizations.
This is the decision of a few people working in the Windows Store team.
The people inside Microsoft working on TypeScript, Helm, Kubernetes, OpenSSH, VS Code, and who knows how many other OSS projects definitely show that Microsoft as a whole is moving to a more open, free model.