I agree with that. The only reason I am bringing it up is because I am afraid: What if Canonical is taking the commission and just funneling it into Ubuntu? That isn’t distribution-neutral, and if buying Snaps are supported, this issue would probably be raised by many other people as well.
Like, lets say Elementary, Ubuntu, and Fedora use Snaps. Would it be a little annoying to Fedora if their users are getting commissions taken on Snaps, and they are going to fund Ubuntu (a competitor distribution)?
It is only to show this is distro-neutral as already claimed.
Meanwhile, we’ve been here working hard for years so that users, developers, and distributions all have a chance to have a have a great platform at hand for software distribution and maintenance, and perhaps even be funded by it at some point.
I, in no way, want to downplay what you are doing here.
I just see the Snap Store becoming the new Play Store (for Linux). Not necessarily in a good way though. Like, if Linux takes off, imagine how people who run Fedora or other distributions would feel if every purchase gets a cut going to Ubuntu development. Yes, Snap needs to get money back for how it was developed. In the long term though…
I just fear Ubuntu being the new Android of Linux. All other “remixes/alternatives” don’t get any funding, but Ubuntu (the Android of Linux) does.
You’ve been saying the same thing repeatedly. We understand it. The model if and when it is put in place will be revenue sharing, and we’ll do the best we can to be fair and to include those that develop and distribute software so that the success of the store is shared. Our goal is still to make the whole project a success though, and it’s unreasonable to think we can prescribe what anyone that happens to be involved in that process will do with the funding. You, me, Canonical, Elementary, or anyone else.
I hope we understand each other. I’m closing this for now so we can move on.
