4 ms·

Going through hoops usually refer to an excessive effort. Having to go through between zero (it you have needed the number before) and one free forms from a st

Going through hoops usually refer to an excessive effort. Having to go through between zero (it you have needed the number before) and one free forms from a standard entity to get a widely recognized identifier used for many things is objectively not an excessive effort. Sharing apps on app stores is a continuous commitment with various responsibilities like, such as ensuring safety of users through regular maintenance. If the idea if submitting one number is too much of a burden given the joy/finances you get out of it, then the rest of the maintenance responsibilities likely are too and maybe it's better to skip the publishing part. Not sure what you're on about with corporate colonization. Colonizing implies forcefully taking what was rightfully someone elses. Also, in many places, making a company is just a form and standard practice even if you're just going to sell a single bogus app for 0.99 USD or whatever, so even individuals will be "corporations".

Lammy 1y ago
Spare me your “““safety””” FUD and your moralizing language please. My responsibilities were set out in the license text and are not up for you to debate: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html#section15 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html#section15
- arghwhat 1y ago
  No they were set out in the contract you agreed to when publishing which has commitments and grants entirely orthogonal to your source license. Plus certain moral obligations to society. Your license text is only capable of adding supplementary rights, and you're responsible for ensuring that your source license is fully compatible with the contract at time of publishing. If you just want to dump stuff, leave it on GitHub.
- shitpostbot 1y ago
  [dead]
cosmic_cheese 1y ago
While I believe some of the (App|Play Store) requirements with DUN numbers and such are overkill and unnecessary, I also agree that there’s maybe a bit too much of a tendency for devs (commercial and indie alike) to take advantage of less restrictive means of distribution to “dump and run”, where they toss a binary over the wall and forget the project even exists for long stretches of time, even as bugs and vulnerabilities accumulate. This worked alright in the 90s and to a more limited extent in the 2000s, but from the 2010s onward it’s become more and more untenable except for the most simplistic of software, especially when it comes to anything dealing with the internet or externally sourced files. Regular maintenance and updates are an unavoidable fact of life for devs. So I’m kind of two minds here. Lower resistance/barrier to entry can be good in terms of encouraging participation, but it also inevitably means a lot more neglected projects sitting around rusting. If there’s no effort to control that, platforms can easily become filled with rusty half-functional apps. The way that Apple/Google are attempting to do this is not great however because it’s too oriented towards companies.

Lammy 1y ago

Spare me your “““safety””” FUD and your moralizing language please. My responsibilities were set out in the license text and are not up for you to debate: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html#section15 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html#section15

arghwhat 1y ago
No they were set out in the contract you agreed to when publishing which has commitments and grants entirely orthogonal to your source license. Plus certain moral obligations to society. Your license text is only capable of adding supplementary rights, and you're responsible for ensuring that your source license is fully compatible with the contract at time of publishing. If you just want to dump stuff, leave it on GitHub.
shitpostbot 1y ago
[dead]

cosmic_cheese 1y ago

While I believe some of the (App|Play Store) requirements with DUN numbers and such are overkill and unnecessary, I also agree that there’s maybe a bit too much of a tendency for devs (commercial and indie alike) to take advantage of less restrictive means of distribution to “dump and run”, where they toss a binary over the wall and forget the project even exists for long stretches of time, even as bugs and vulnerabilities accumulate. This worked alright in the 90s and to a more limited extent in the 2000s, but from the 2010s onward it’s become more and more untenable except for the most simplistic of software, especially when it comes to anything dealing with the internet or externally sourced files. Regular maintenance and updates are an unavoidable fact of life for devs. So I’m kind of two minds here. Lower resistance/barrier to entry can be good in terms of encouraging participation, but it also inevitably means a lot more neglected projects sitting around rusting. If there’s no effort to control that, platforms can easily become filled with rusty half-functional apps. The way that Apple/Google are attempting to do this is not great however because it’s too oriented towards companies.