Re: [Elementary-dev-community] Re : GPL Comment
I would vote the second one too, it looks cleaner IMHO, and i don't think we need to have the names of the developers in the source file, those can be found in the about dialog. -- Jaap On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 1:28 AM, Christian Dywan christ...@twotoasts.dewrote: Le 14.06.2012 00:46, Corentin a écrit : The things I dislike on the first are : * Your Name your_em...@mail.com - Because I don't think that there is only one person working on a file, Put the team's name instead. * The asterisk, they looks pretty on the second one. For what it's worth, the name is meaningless to actual copyright disputes. I tend to like if I can see at a glance who's the person to talk to for a certain file. I would refrain from deviating from existing wording without talking to an expert. There are several wordings around, but that doesn't mean you can freely change it without risk. -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~elementary-dev-community Post to : elementary-dev-community@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~elementary-dev-community More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~elementary-dev-community Post to : elementary-dev-community@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~elementary-dev-community More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Elementary-dev-community] Re : GPL Comment
Hi, 2012/6/14 Jaap Broekhuizen jaap...@gmail.com I would vote the second one too, it looks cleaner IMHO, and i don't think we need to have the names of the developers in the source file, those can be found in the about dialog. I doubt it is legal : how can you write that there is a copyright, which isn't assigned to anyone? No, you can't put the team name, it is not an official structure. The day we have a elementary trademark, entreprise, and everything, yes, it could work. It is called copyright assignment (and I am opposed to it, just keeping the names is good)... Lucas -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~elementary-dev-community Post to : elementary-dev-community@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~elementary-dev-community More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Elementary-dev-community] Re : GPL Comment
Christian said: For what it's worth, the name is meaningless to actual copyright disputes. I tend to like if I can see at a glance who's the person to talk to for a certain file. If that is true, then i'd vote for just elementary, if this is not true then of course we'd have to add the name of the developer who created the file (and the name of developers who made huge changes). Are the names in the copyright actually used by people to find out who made the file? Most of the time it's just the name of the maintainer of a specific project, and when someone is working on a project they will probably know who that maintainer actually is. Now for something like granite, where a lot of files are written by a lot of different people, there it would come in handy, but i don't know how much of a necessity it would be in the other projects. At least i cant think of projects that we have other than granite where multiple devs do really big changes to files. I could be wrong though :) -- Jaap On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 2:51 PM, xapantu xapa...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, 2012/6/14 Jaap Broekhuizen jaap...@gmail.com I would vote the second one too, it looks cleaner IMHO, and i don't think we need to have the names of the developers in the source file, those can be found in the about dialog. I doubt it is legal : how can you write that there is a copyright, which isn't assigned to anyone? No, you can't put the team name, it is not an official structure. The day we have a elementary trademark, entreprise, and everything, yes, it could work. It is called copyright assignment (and I am opposed to it, just keeping the names is good)... Lucas -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~elementary-dev-community Post to : elementary-dev-community@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~elementary-dev-community More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~elementary-dev-community Post to : elementary-dev-community@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~elementary-dev-community More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Elementary-dev-community] Re : GPL Comment
Le 14.06.2012 15:09, Jaap Broekhuizen a écrit : Christian said: For what it's worth, the name is meaningless to actual copyright disputes. I tend to like if I can see at a glance who's the person to talk to for a certain file. If that is true, then i'd vote for just elementary, if this is not true then of course we'd have to add the name of the developer who created the file (and the name of developers who made huge changes). Are the names in the copyright actually used by people to find out who made the file? Most of the time it's just the name of the maintainer of a specific project, and when someone is working on a project they will probably know who that maintainer actually is. Now for something like granite, where a lot of files are written by a lot of different people, there it would come in handy, but i don't know how much of a necessity it would be in the other projects. At least i cant think of projects that we have other than granite where multiple devs do really big changes to files. Let me briefly expand my point. I, and others, look at the name to see who's most likely the author(s). It is also useful to have an idea of the copyright holder(s). However, often enough the names are incomplete or there's only a company name¹. So for legal purposes, you would eventually resort to version history, issue trackers and elsewhere to accurately determine who's done what. ¹Even if there's a company name, there's a difference between usage rights and individual copyright. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~elementary-dev-community Post to : elementary-dev-community@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~elementary-dev-community More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
[Elementary-dev-community] USC Technical Requirements
Hey everyone, I've been checking into the requirements for uploading apps to USC, and I came across an interesting bit here: In order for your application to be distributed in the Software Centre it must: - Be in one, self-contained directory when installed - Be able to be installed into the /opt/package-name directory (*) - Be executable by all users from the /opt/package-name directory (**) - Write all configuration settings to ~/.config/package-name (This can be one file or a directory containing multiple configuration files) (*) Open source, zero-cost apps should be installable to /opt/ extras.ubuntu.com/package-name (**) Users only have read and not write privileges to this directory Would our apps fit these requirements? If not, how much work would it be to make them fit the requirements? -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~elementary-dev-community Post to : elementary-dev-community@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~elementary-dev-community More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Elementary-dev-community] USC Technical Requirements
What about something like, say, Scratch? Is it just a minor tweak in the packaging, or is it a bigger change in the actual code? On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 10:45 PM, Pim Vullers p...@vullersmail.nl wrote: On 06/14/12 19:46, Cassidy James wrote: Hey everyone, I've been checking into the requirements for uploading apps to USC, and I came across an interesting bit here: In order for your application to be distributed in the Software Centre it must: * Be in one, self-contained directory when installed * Be able to be installed into the /opt/package-name directory (*) * Be executable by all users from the /opt/package-name directory (**) * Write all configuration settings to ~/.config/package-name (This can be one file or a directory containing multiple configuration files) (*) Open source, zero-cost apps should be installable to /opt/extras.ubuntu.com/ http://extras.ubuntu.com/package-name (**) Users only have read and not write privileges to this directory Would our apps fit these requirements? If not, how much work would it be to make them fit the requirements? For files this is not much of a problem. This can be achieved by setting the install prefix to /opt/package-name/. The issue is GSettings (these schemes are currently installed in /usr/share/glib-2.0/schemas). I don't know if Granite will also be offered through this way. But libraries might also cause issues. This approach would require apps to bundle custom libraries, or there must be some mechanism to add /opt/library-name/lib or so to the library path. So the major issue is the GSettings schemes. Otherwise I see no issues for small apps. For larger apps it will be harder to achieve. Pim Vullers -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~elementary-dev-community Post to : elementary-dev-community@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~elementary-dev-community More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~elementary-dev-community Post to : elementary-dev-community@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~elementary-dev-community More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
