"Third party" software - a clear term?

[Kyle Nitzsche]

Micheal Vogt accepted the proposed change (bug 420672) to the Software 
Sources app (software-properties-gtk). So this is in the pipeline and 
doc changes should follow.

Also, I created bug 422756 to note the need for the same change in 
Add/Remove (gnome-app-install pkg).

Cheers,
Kyle

Dylan McCall wrote:
>> Hi Matthew,
>>
>> I created bug 420672 and made a bzr branch with the code changes as a 
>> proposed fix.
>>
>> If accepted, there will be follow-on doc (and translation) changes.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Kyle
>>
>>
>> Matthew East wrote:
>>     
>>> Hi Kyle,
>>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 2:55 PM, Kyle
>>> Nitzsche<kyle.nitzsche at canonical.com> wrote:
>>>   
>>>       
>>>> This term may make one wonder: who is the "first party"? And who, the
>>>> "second party"? If the answers to these questions are not immediately
>>>> clear to the user, then I would propose the term "third party" itself
>>>> should be reconsidered.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps simply calling it (in SW and docs) "Other" might be clearer to
>>>> users?
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>> I see your point, but I think this is something to raise with the
>>> people who design Ubuntu's desktop. The documentation will generally
>>> strive to follow naming conventions used by the desktop because
>>> otherwise it will get even more confusing for the users. If the
>>> current naming convention used in the software sources application is
>>> "Third-Party Sources", then the documentation will almost certainly
>>> follow that until it is changed. On that basis I'd suggest that you
>>> approach the Ubuntu desktop team to discuss how best to describe this
>>> software.
>>>       
>
> I think we should avoid the term "third-party in terms of free software.
> It makes sense in a proprietary environment where people are not free to
> make contributions to the core product. However, the collaborative
> environment of free software changes that concept. Especially with
> distributions such as Ubuntu, I don't see how we could define
> "first-party" software and then distinguish third-party in the way
> implied here.
>
> On the other hand, I can see the distinction there in terms of the
> repositories themselves and the official support they provide. I think
> the software itself should simply not be classified in this fashion.
>
>
>
> Dylan McCall
>