Linked by David Adams on Tue 13th Dec 2011 03:12 UTC
Editorial I was reading today about how Linux Mint developers altered the Banshee music player source code to redirect affiliate revenue from Amazon music orders to them instead of Banshee. They've reportedly made less than $4, which has caused a kerfluffle among those paying attention to that corner of the world. But it raises a larger point that has been swirling around for a couple of decades: an OS vendor has a lot of power to influence, and even monetize their user base. Where should they draw the line?
Thread beginning with comment 500031
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by Drumhellar - amazon
by jabbotts on Tue 13th Dec 2011 18:18 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Drumhellar"
jabbotts
Member since:
2007-09-06

I think they are at least doing it right. They didn't modify Android them claim it to be the original. Instead, they modified Android and pointed it at there own repositories. If one is not going to use Google's stock Android then they shouldn't be using Google's stock repositories. Amazon also has the media and software content to provide a full feature repository source and the device is blatantly marketed as consumer window into Amazon's garden so fair enough there too.

Granted, i don't know the developer side of it. Is it just the same app submitted to Amazon's repository under it's terms of use or does the app actually need to be written differently than it would for Google's repository. If it's just a seporate submission or package format then suck it up or don't publish for it. If, however, the difference is in the program language required for some strange reason then developer uproar seems justified. Somehow I don't think it's the latter though.

Reply Parent Score: 2