On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 01:17:33AM +0200, jan iversen wrote: > I see, I have to get used to this license issues (a long time ago I > believed open source was just open source, then I joined an apache project).
It has nothing to do with licensing. Even if the extension code and all its dependencies are under the ALv2, why should OpenOffice include extensions by default in the install set? This goes against the concept of an extension. The fact that now there are three supported extensions is just a question of old Sun/Oracle decisions to release these as extension and not integrated as part of the application. > > never mind. > > Would it be to our advantage if we offered third party developers (that is > how I see extension developers) the possibility to register a language file > and get it translated as part of the language packs ? This will break several concepts and things. Mainly extension developers have complete freedom about when to release updates, how to integrate translation in their extensions (use the configuration API and XCU files, use the resource API and Java-property-like files, etc.), most important what license to choose, etc. In short, you will have to implement a new framework and force extensions developers to use it. Besides several concerns, legal concerns among them. > Or should we just say extension developers does not concern us (and help > AOO get more used) so we just look the other way ? Programmability and extensibility has always been a priority in OpenOffice, just read the Developer's Guide and other parts of the wiki. I tend to agree that it will be useful for an extension developer a way to submit a set of resource strings and get them translated, as long as the extension developer is not forced with release/legal/other concerns. Regards -- Ariel Constenla-Haile La Plata, Argentina
pgp5xJdU39Y2o.pgp
Description: PGP signature
