Re: How about creating addons.gnome.org
It would be very useful for discussions like these if there were a list of licenses which are open source but not free software, I agree that the list would be useful for some things. However, I would not want to publish it on gnu.org; that could undermine our main message about those licenses: that they are not free licenses. That way, rather than hand-wavy arguments, if somebody asks for open-source-but-not-free, we can ask Which of these licenses do you actually want, and why? We can already do this, more or less. Once the person names a specific license, http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html will usually say whether it is free or not. if the license is not listed there, please tell me. The FSF can look at it and judge whether it is a free license. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: How about creating addons.gnome.org
On Tue, 2010-08-17 at 04:24 +0300, Osama Khalid wrote: On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 03:00:06AM +0200, Philip Van Hoof wrote: I do agree with this. Being condemned to freedom means that only we ourselves are responsible for justification. Giving freedom means allowing justifying the use of proprietary software. 1. Everyone is, more or less, free to do whatever they wish. 2. GNOME will only host and endorse free software. Right now, #2 isn't accurate. GNOME will also host open-source software: http://live.gnome.org/ReleasePlanning/ModuleProposing Free-ness: Apps must be under a Free or Open license and support open standards and protocols. In case of doubt about the module license, send an email to the Release Team and the desktop-devel mailing list. Support of proprietary protocols and closed standards is part of the world we live in, but all applications that support closed protocols should also support open equivalents where those exist, and should default to those if at all possible while still serving their intended purpose. So, clearly, you guys want to change this, that means that i ask(ed) this question: Why not open-source software? I don't think we need to get into the free software vs. open source debate here. That debate isn't the question here. The question was why not open-source software? The main point where they differ is not whether any given Their main difference isn't the question. code *on the Internet* is free/open (and that's the important part here), but whether certain conditions, such as Tivoization, may turn the code into non-free/closed. Sure, however, why not open-source software? Cheers -- Philip Van Hoof freelance software developer Codeminded BVBA - http://codeminded.be ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: How about creating addons.gnome.org
Hi! Sure, however, why not open-source software? As far as I see it, there is a clear definition for free software while Open Source can refer to many things and while all free software is open source not all open source software is free software. The minimal definition of open source is that you can look at the source code, that is not enough if you may not share/change/distribute/etc. it. All other definitions of open source are rather weak. There is the OSI[1] definition but there are also others. Point 4 of the OSI definition would be rather annoying for GNOME in pratical terms. IMHO this is leading to nothing and it is far easier to stick to open source. In the terms above there is a clear text saying that you should contact the release-team when in doubt. If you have a non-free but open source license then I am pretty sure there is some doubt. Regards, Johannes [1] http://www.opensource.org/osd.html ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: How about creating addons.gnome.org
Hi! IMHO this is leading to nothing and it is far easier to stick to open source... ...stick to free software of course... Regards, Johannes ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: How about creating addons.gnome.org
On Tue, 2010-08-17 at 10:41 +0200, Johannes Schmid wrote: Hi Johannes! Sure, however, why not open-source software? As far as I see it, there is a clear definition for free software while Open Source can refer to many things and while all free software is open source not all open source software is free software. The minimal definition of open source is that you can look at the source code, that is not enough if you may not share/change/distribute/etc. it. All other definitions of open source are rather weak. There is the OSI[1] definition but there are also others. Point 4 of the OSI definition would be rather annoying for GNOME in pratical terms. GNOME could allow all open source software[1] that is compatible with LGPL, for example. I guess that's reasonable given that most lib* projects of GNOME are LGPL. Now that copyright reassignment must be preapproved on a case-by-case, GNOME could add no copyright assignment requirement to the list of when in doubt too. Etcetera. IMHO this is leading to nothing and it is far easier to stick to open source. In the terms above there is a clear text saying that you should contact the release-team when in doubt. If you have a non-free but open source license then I am pretty sure there is some doubt. I agree with sticking to open source with a text saying that you should contact the release-team when in doubt, and that this is far easier. Cheers, Philip [1] http://www.opensource.org/osd.html -- Philip Van Hoof freelance software developer Codeminded BVBA - http://codeminded.be ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: How about creating addons.gnome.org
It does appear that the inclusion of open and not free packages in GNOME is an exception, not rule. If a program is not free, it cannot be in GNOME. Its inclusion would be a serious mistake. Has there been such a mistake? The cases you cite don't show any. On my system out of 109 packages 4 combine GPL/LGPL with BSD license, one combines GPL/LGPL with MIT (compiz-gnome). There are two different BSD licenses. Both of them are free software licenses (see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html). I hope these programs uses the revised BSD license, because that is compatible with the GPL. The original BSD license is incompatible with the GNU GPL, so combining the two would violate one license or the other. If MIT means the X11 license, that is also a free software license. So it looks like all the software you're talking about is free. Many people think that only programs under GNU licenses can qualify as free, but that's not so. For the definition of free software, see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html. There are some licenses which are open source but not free software. Fortunately they are not used very often. You can find them, more or less, by comparing the OSI's list of approved licenses with http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html. I recall that Reciprocal Public License one of them; I found a few others but I don't recall which ones. I say more or less because if a license is not mentioned in license-list.html, it could be that it is free and we have not yet studied it. Also, there are many simple licenses that are minor variations of the BSD licenses or the X11 license; they are free, but it would be tedious to list them all. I know of one other way a program can be open source and not free. A product can come with binaries made from free software source code, and not let the user change the binaries. Then the source is free software but that binary is not. The definition of open source is not concerned with this issue. Thus, the tivoized binary (plus its source code) would be a program that is open source but not free software. I mention this issue for completeness' sake, but I don't think it affects the list of GNOME apps: all these apps can be built and run from source code. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: How about creating addons.gnome.org
On Tue, 2010-08-17 at 18:37 -0400, Richard Stallman wrote: There are some licenses which are open source but not free software. Fortunately they are not used very often. You can find them, more or less, by comparing the OSI's list of approved licenses with http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html. I recall that Reciprocal Public License one of them; I found a few others but I don't recall which ones. Hi Richard, It would be very useful for discussions like these if there were a list of licenses which are open source but not free software, along with an explanation of why. Is that something that could be provided on gnu.org? (I understand it would take time to compile such a list, and that it couldn't appear tomorrow.) That way, rather than hand-wavy arguments, if somebody asks for open-source-but-not-free, we can ask Which of these licenses do you actually want, and why? -- Shaun ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: How about creating addons.gnome.org
On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 04:33 -0400, Richard Stallman wrote: Which applications are involved? There are some desktop apps that are LGPL'd or even [X11'd], for which non-free addons could legally be developed. In those cases, nonfree addons would be lawful, but they are still wrong. So we should make sure not to include them in any list. We should nothing except what GNOME as an organization agreed earlier. These are the current rules for module proposing. I don't see why a addons.gnome.org would need to be different: http://live.gnome.org/ReleasePlanning/ModuleProposing : Free-ness: Apps must be under a Free or Open license and support open standards and protocols. In case of doubt about the module license, send an email to the Release Team and the desktop-devel mailing list. Support of proprietary protocols and closed standards is part of the world we live in, but all applications that support closed protocols should also support open equivalents where those exist, and should default to those if at all possible while still serving their intended purpose. That states free OR open. Given the context I guess open means open source as defined here: http://www.opensource.org/ (fair enough?) Cheers, Philip -- Philip Van Hoof freelance software developer Codeminded BVBA - http://codeminded.be ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: How about creating addons.gnome.org
On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 19:33 -0400, Richard Stallman wrote: It's not really a question of morality, how would we prevent a user from installing both a GPL and a non-OSI plugin for Tomboy at the same time? As someone already pointed out, we don't aim to _stop_ users from installing whatever they wish. The question at hand is what we _suggest_ to users. We should not steer users towards nonfree programs. What counts is whether the addon is free or nonfree. (See the definition in http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html.) The OSI has a different criterion, called open source. It really is different; not all open source programs are free. In the GNU Project, we don't follow the OSI; we insist on free programs. But then again, that's the GNU project. GNOME, however, has different guidelines: http://live.gnome.org/ReleasePlanning/ModuleProposing Free-ness: Apps must be under a Free or Open license and support open standards and protocols. In case of doubt about the module license, send an email to the Release Team and the desktop-devel mailing list. Support of proprietary protocols and closed standards is part of the world we live in, but all applications that support closed protocols should also support open equivalents where those exist, and should default to those if at all possible while still serving their intended purpose. You can see that these guidelines clarify that the license must either be free OR open (BOTH are permitted). I bet this guideline had a good reason to come into existence. So let's stick to it. Whatever GNU's guideline is. Cheers, Philip -- Philip Van Hoof freelance software developer Codeminded BVBA - http://codeminded.be ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: How about creating addons.gnome.org
On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 19:21 +0200, Johannes Schmid wrote: Hi! Forgive my ignorance, but isn't that perfectly allowed as long as the user doesn't then distribute the combination? Yeah, that's perfectly OK as Tomboy as LGPL. And for me, Freedom also includes the freedom to use proprietary software if someone wants to. I do agree with this. Being condemned to freedom means that only we ourselves are responsible for justification. Giving freedom means allowing justifying the use of proprietary software. Defining an individual's freedom it is up to the individual, not to dogma's nor organizations. Not even the FSF. Let people have either anguish, their choice of adviser or their own responsibility of choice. It's the core of freedom. Software in itself, isn't. Choosing for yourself and for all of mankind what is best ... that could be freedom. Anyway, a.g.o will obviously only host free software! Why not open-source software? So far, I'm all but convinced that free software is good enough to be the only possible option. Making this the only possible option is quite a heavy philosophic requirement. Based on what philosophy is open source not good enough? And please take your time and be elaborate. I think that this decision is, by far, heavy enough for philosophy to be put into action. Cheers, Philip -- Philip Van Hoof freelance software developer Codeminded BVBA - http://codeminded.be ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: How about creating addons.gnome.org
On Tue, 2010-08-17 at 03:00 +0200, Philip Van Hoof wrote: On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 19:21 +0200, Johannes Schmid wrote: [...] Why not open-source software? So far, I'm all but convinced that free software is good enough to be the only possible option. Making this the only possible option is quite a heavy philosophic requirement. Based on what philosophy is open source not good enough? And please take your time and be elaborate. I think that this decision is, by far, heavy enough for philosophy to be put into action. GNOME is a Free Software project. That should be enough. -- Germán Póo-Caamaño http://www.gnome.org/~gpoo/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: How about creating addons.gnome.org
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 03:00:06AM +0200, Philip Van Hoof wrote: I do agree with this. Being condemned to freedom means that only we ourselves are responsible for justification. Giving freedom means allowing justifying the use of proprietary software. 1. Everyone is, more or less, free to do whatever they wish. 2. GNOME will only host and endorse free software. Why not open-source software? I don't think we need to get into the free software vs. open source debate here. The main point where they differ is not whether any given code *on the Internet* is free/open (and that's the important part here), but whether certain conditions, such as Tivoization, may turn the code into non-free/closed. -- Osama Khalid English-to-Arabic translator and programmer. http://osamak.wordpress.com | http://tinyogg.com ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: How about creating addons.gnome.org
Philip, It does appear that the inclusion of open and not free packages in GNOME is an exception, not rule. You can type the following (or equivalent apt) query on you system and analyze the result: sudo yum info installed *gnome*x86_64 *gnome*noarch | grep -E Name|License On my system out of 109 packages 4 combine GPL/LGPL with BSD license, one combines GPL/LGPL with MIT (compiz-gnome). On Tue, 2010-08-17 at 02:28 +0200, Philip Van Hoof wrote: On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 04:33 -0400, Richard Stallman wrote: Which applications are involved? There are some desktop apps that are LGPL'd or even [X11'd], for which non-free addons could legally be developed. In those cases, nonfree addons would be lawful, but they are still wrong. So we should make sure not to include them in any list. We should nothing except what GNOME as an organization agreed earlier. These are the current rules for module proposing. I don't see why a addons.gnome.org would need to be different: http://live.gnome.org/ReleasePlanning/ModuleProposing : Free-ness: Apps must be under a Free or Open license and support open standards and protocols. In case of doubt about the module license, send an email to the Release Team and the desktop-devel mailing list. Support of proprietary protocols and closed standards is part of the world we live in, but all applications that support closed protocols should also support open equivalents where those exist, and should default to those if at all possible while still serving their intended purpose. That states free OR open. Given the context I guess open means open source as defined here: http://www.opensource.org/ (fair enough?) Cheers, Philip ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: How about creating addons.gnome.org
Hi! As all the applications involved are GPL'd Which applications are involved? There are some desktop apps that are LGPL'd or even MIT'd, for which non-free addons could legally be developed. Could you give examples inside the GNOME Desktop release set (not libraries)? Otherwise, we would only accept free software of course. Thanks, Johannes ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: How about creating addons.gnome.org
Which applications are involved? There are some desktop apps that are LGPL'd or even [X11'd], for which non-free addons could legally be developed. In those cases, nonfree addons would be lawful, but they are still wrong. So we should make sure not to include them in any list. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: How about creating addons.gnome.org
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 11:18 PM, Johannes Schmid j...@jsschmid.de wrote: Hi! As all the applications involved are GPL'd Which applications are involved? There are some desktop apps that are LGPL'd or even MIT'd, for which non-free addons could legally be developed. Could you give examples inside the GNOME Desktop release set (not libraries)? Tomboy is LGPL2. Sandy ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: How about creating addons.gnome.org
On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 06:38 -0700, Sandy Armstrong wrote: On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 11:18 PM, Johannes Schmid j...@jsschmid.de wrote: Hi! As all the applications involved are GPL'd Which applications are involved? There are some desktop apps that are LGPL'd or even MIT'd, for which non-free addons could legally be developed. Could you give examples inside the GNOME Desktop release set (not libraries)? Tomboy is LGPL2. Right, so some developers may choose to license their apps or plugin frameworks liberally to allow proprietary plugins. We don't need a morality debate on the existence of those plugins on this list (please). But I think most would agree that our servers shouldn't host non-free software. It's a simple one-liner: GNOME only hosts free software on addons.gnome.org. It's worth adding. -- Shaun McCance http://syllogist.net/ ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: How about creating addons.gnome.org
El dv 13 de 08 de 2010 a les 10:12 -0400, en/na Shaun McCance va escriure: On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 06:38 -0700, Sandy Armstrong wrote: On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 11:18 PM, Johannes Schmid j...@jsschmid.de wrote: Hi! As all the applications involved are GPL'd Which applications are involved? There are some desktop apps that are LGPL'd or even MIT'd, for which non-free addons could legally be developed. Could you give examples inside the GNOME Desktop release set (not libraries)? Tomboy is LGPL2. Right, so some developers may choose to license their apps or plugin frameworks liberally to allow proprietary plugins. We don't need a morality debate on the existence of those plugins on this list (please). But I think most would agree that our servers shouldn't host non-free software. It's a simple one-liner: GNOME only hosts free software on addons.gnome.org. It's worth adding. +1! -- gil forcada [ca] guifi.net - una xarxa lliure que no para de créixer [en] guifi.net - a non-stopping free network bloc: http://gil.badall.net ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: How about creating addons.gnome.org
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Shaun McCance sha...@gnome.org wrote: On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 06:38 -0700, Sandy Armstrong wrote: Tomboy is LGPL2. Right, so some developers may choose to license their apps or plugin frameworks liberally to allow proprietary plugins. We don't need a morality debate on the existence of those plugins on this list (please). But I think most would agree that our servers shouldn't host non-free software. It's not really a question of morality, how would we prevent a user from installing both a GPL and a non-OSI plugin for Tomboy at the same time? -- Patryk Zawadzki ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: How about creating addons.gnome.org
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 7:26 AM, Patryk Zawadzki pat...@pld-linux.org wrote: On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Shaun McCance sha...@gnome.org wrote: On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 06:38 -0700, Sandy Armstrong wrote: Tomboy is LGPL2. Right, so some developers may choose to license their apps or plugin frameworks liberally to allow proprietary plugins. We don't need a morality debate on the existence of those plugins on this list (please). But I think most would agree that our servers shouldn't host non-free software. It's not really a question of morality, how would we prevent a user from installing both a GPL and a non-OSI plugin for Tomboy at the same time? Forgive my ignorance, but isn't that perfectly allowed as long as the user doesn't then distribute the combination? In other news, I agree with Shaun that a hypothetical a.g.o should only host free software. Sandy ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: How about creating addons.gnome.org
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 6:48 PM, Sandy Armstrong sanfordarmstr...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 7:26 AM, Patryk Zawadzki pat...@pld-linux.org wrote: It's not really a question of morality, how would we prevent a user from installing both a GPL and a non-OSI plugin for Tomboy at the same time? Forgive my ignorance, but isn't that perfectly allowed as long as the user doesn't then distribute the combination? GPL lets you do anything as long as you don't distribute, there can be no such assumption about a non-OSI license. -- Patryk Zawadzki ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: How about creating addons.gnome.org
Hi! Forgive my ignorance, but isn't that perfectly allowed as long as the user doesn't then distribute the combination? Yeah, that's perfectly OK as Tomboy as LGPL. And for me, Freedom also includes the freedom to use proprietary software if someone wants to. Anyway, a.g.o will obviously only host free software! Regards, Johannes signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: How about creating addons.gnome.org
It's not really a question of morality, how would we prevent a user from installing both a GPL and a non-OSI plugin for Tomboy at the same time? As someone already pointed out, we don't aim to _stop_ users from installing whatever they wish. The question at hand is what we _suggest_ to users. We should not steer users towards nonfree programs. What counts is whether the addon is free or nonfree. (See the definition in http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html.) The OSI has a different criterion, called open source. It really is different; not all open source programs are free. In the GNU Project, we don't follow the OSI; we insist on free programs. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: How about creating addons.gnome.org
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 16:01, Gil Forcada gforc...@gnome.org wrote: El dt 10 de 08 de 2010 a les 09:43 -0400, en/na Jose Aliste va escriure: Hi, On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 9:35 AM, Johannes Schmid j...@jsschmid.de wrote: Hi! So to stress things, the site should clearly state that the plugins are property of their developers and that problems should go to them (as the addons.mozilla.org does) Of course we could also showcase GNOME-blessed plugins with some logo of Gnome. For me blessedw would mean are to be defined as maintained in a repository in the gnome git server. Wouldn't it be better to restrict us to high quality plugins in the first place? So, basically, getting accepted on addons.gnome.org would mean to deliver quality code, translation and documentation. We could have some kind of staging area of course but I would want this area to be disabled by default, with a clear You have been warned-sign attached to it. I totally agree with you. However, who would be responsible to review a plugin outside the staging area? Let's first focus on what we need to create a first prototype version of it, link somehow with libpeas [1] and then we can start adding staging areas and flowers and rainbows. Actually, AMO already has a staging area as described by Jose, they call it sandbox. You can read more about it here: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/developers/docs/policies Regards, Tomeu I mean, obviously that there are lot of things to work out, but it would get more interest from developers and users if there's something to play with. For example we can start allowing only themes (for gnome-appearance capplet and gedit color styles) and backgrounds (again for gnome-appearance capplet). Then after this works successfully we can add snippets for Anjuta, plugins for EOG, GNOME Shell and gedit and so on. My 5 cents, Cheers, [1] http://git.gnome.org/browse/libpeas Remember that we aren't a company that needs to promote its appstore by having lots of stuff there and we can concentrate on quality. See [1] related to that. This was never in my mind ;) I am not an apple fan :). I am a Gnome fan. Greetings José Regards, Johannes [1] http://www.mobileuserexperience.com/?p=896 ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list -- gil forcada [ca] guifi.net - una xarxa lliure que no para de créixer [en] guifi.net - a non-stopping free network bloc: http://gil.badall.net ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: How about creating addons.gnome.org
On Mo, 09.08.2010 12:28, Johannes Schmid wrote: The idea is simple (but long and complex to implement). I would love to have a site addons.gnome.org, so we can have nice database with plugins and other addons for desktop apps. The idea would be to borrow ideas from the addons site of mozilla and it should support different types of add-ons (for instance, for gedit, we have plugins, language files, style-themes to name a few). If we do this, we should have a strict policy that we only list add-ons that are free. As all the applications involved are GPL'd Which applications are involved? There are some desktop apps that are LGPL'd or even MIT'd, for which non-free addons could legally be developed. Holger ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: How about creating addons.gnome.org
On 08/08/2010 02:55 PM, Jose Aliste wrote: Hi All, I sent this to the gnome-web-list but there was instructed to send it here, so it can be more widely discussed (and maybe also in the next gnome foundation meeting) The idea is simple (but long and complex to implement). I would love to have a site addons.gnome.org, so we can have nice database with plugins and other addons for desktop apps. The idea would be to borrow ideas from the addons site of mozilla and it should support different types of add-ons (for instance, for gedit, we have plugins, language files, style-themes to name a few). So what do you think about this? This is an idea the gedit team had for some time but never realized due to lack of time resources. The nice thing here is that with the recent trend toward using a single library for several apps the interaction code only needs to be written and debugged once... Anyway I'm a bit frightened by the potential stability issues implied by such a blessed open plugin repository. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: How about creating addons.gnome.org
Hi! So to stress things, the site should clearly state that the plugins are property of their developers and that problems should go to them (as the addons.mozilla.org does) Of course we could also showcase GNOME-blessed plugins with some logo of Gnome. For me blessedw would mean are to be defined as maintained in a repository in the gnome git server. Wouldn't it be better to restrict us to high quality plugins in the first place? So, basically, getting accepted on addons.gnome.org would mean to deliver quality code, translation and documentation. We could have some kind of staging area of course but I would want this area to be disabled by default, with a clear You have been warned-sign attached to it. Remember that we aren't a company that needs to promote its appstore by having lots of stuff there and we can concentrate on quality. See [1] related to that. Regards, Johannes [1] http://www.mobileuserexperience.com/?p=896 ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: How about creating addons.gnome.org
Hi, On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 9:35 AM, Johannes Schmid j...@jsschmid.de wrote: Hi! So to stress things, the site should clearly state that the plugins are property of their developers and that problems should go to them (as the addons.mozilla.org does) Of course we could also showcase GNOME-blessed plugins with some logo of Gnome. For me blessedw would mean are to be defined as maintained in a repository in the gnome git server. Wouldn't it be better to restrict us to high quality plugins in the first place? So, basically, getting accepted on addons.gnome.org would mean to deliver quality code, translation and documentation. We could have some kind of staging area of course but I would want this area to be disabled by default, with a clear You have been warned-sign attached to it. I totally agree with you. However, who would be responsible to review a plugin outside the staging area? Remember that we aren't a company that needs to promote its appstore by having lots of stuff there and we can concentrate on quality. See [1] related to that. This was never in my mind ;) I am not an apple fan :). I am a Gnome fan. Greetings José Regards, Johannes [1] http://www.mobileuserexperience.com/?p=896 ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: How about creating addons.gnome.org
The idea is simple (but long and complex to implement). I would love to have a site addons.gnome.org, so we can have nice database with plugins and other addons for desktop apps. The idea would be to borrow ideas from the addons site of mozilla and it should support different types of add-ons (for instance, for gedit, we have plugins, language files, style-themes to name a few). If we do this, we should have a strict policy that we only list add-ons that are free. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: How about creating addons.gnome.org
Tomeu, is the source of addons.mozilla.org or activities.sugarlabs.org publicly available under an open source license? If so, could you point me out to it? For our use, being open source is not sufficient. We would need it to be available under a free software license. Most open source licenses are free software licenses, but there are some exceptions. You can check licenses in http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html for the definition of free software. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: How about creating addons.gnome.org
Hi! The idea is simple (but long and complex to implement). I would love to have a site addons.gnome.org, so we can have nice database with plugins and other addons for desktop apps. The idea would be to borrow ideas from the addons site of mozilla and it should support different types of add-ons (for instance, for gedit, we have plugins, language files, style-themes to name a few). If we do this, we should have a strict policy that we only list add-ons that are free. As all the applications involved are GPL'd any addons need to follow the GPL, too so I don't see a problem here that would require any special treatment.(IANAL). Regards, Johannes ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: [Sugar-devel] Fwd: How about creating addons.gnome.org
Hi Aleksey, thank you for your throughful mail. On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 1:41 PM, Aleksey Lim alsr...@member.fsf.org wrote: On Sun, Aug 08, 2010 at 04:11:38PM +0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: Hi, the GNOME people are having an interesting discussion about AMO. Regards, Tomeu -- Forwarded message -- From: Johannes Schmid j...@jsschmid.de Date: Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 15:28 Subject: Re: How about creating addons.gnome.org To: Jose Aliste jose.ali...@gmail.com Cc: Tomeu Vizoso to...@sugarlabs.org, foundation-list@gnome.org Hi! Also, there should be a clear distinction whether an addon is Gnome approved (meaning it is reviewed, translated, probably hosted in the gnome git somewhere) or the work of a freelance dev. Distributions are welcome to keep packaging any of the addons, as they do now, but normally the maintainer's cost of distributing 100 or more addons would be too high (in my opinion). In this sense, I would love to have an easy way of installing add-ons that does not require you to copy files to some hidden directories. We should have a command line gnome-addon install add-on-name, which will download and install the add-on. That would be really neat in my opinion. While I would rather vote for a more complete GNOME Appstore solution in the far future (possibly based on OpenSuSE build service), some points to note: * This will only work for scripted plugins Python, Javascript, Ruby * All compiled languages will suffer depedency problems * It would mean that we install executable things into the user's home directory. Some admins might not like this though of course mozilla does the same. Security is an important point here. It is also a rather huge maintaince burden to check that the plugin works with the installed version of an application. But nevertheless, go for it if you have the time, it sounds like a good idea! Especially for the upcoming gnome-shell addons it could be a perfect place. Johannes Being AMO maintainer on http://activities.sugarlabs.org/, I can share my own experience in code sharing case. There is a problem w/ AMO. AMO, as filesharing tool, works well only for one-file bundles w/ anyarch data, trying to reuse AMO for not trivial cases like binaries, e.g. different ABIs etc., sound overkill for AMO. In any case it will be just a hosting for files, all releated issue like depedencies is not handled by AMO. I completely see the point. Thanks. Anyway, for now my idea is to have a baby version of AGO, where non-compiled add-ons can be maintained and all addons can be showcased. The problem of distributing binaries, as you point out is much more difficult. Anyway, I will be using the new version of AMO, which is written in Django instead of CakePHP, so this should give a little more flexibility. Right now, I'm working on different model - Zero Sugar [1]. The core things are: * everything starts with spec file of the package - recipe file [2] * it will be possible to local launch application only having this spec file and sources tarball/vcs-checkout (in noarch case, or build application locally and start it) * keeping in mind variety of users environments and things like ABI breakages (or even different build flags on different distros), it would be useful to just build application in this particular environment. So, using [2] recipe file, on patched OBS (in progress), it will be possible to create native packages for bunch of deb/rpm distros. It sounds like meta packaging but it is not [3]. * The important thing, installing applications from OBS repos is not primary distribution method (it will work fine in case of centralized repo of applications on OBS, but attaching repositories from individuals(in my mind, regular behaviour in sugar ecosystem), i.e., from home projects on OBS, will be really overkill). The first distribution method will be 0install [4]. So, OBS will create not only native packages but 0install feeds as well (for nonarch applications, only 0install feeds, for binary based, 0install will reuse native packages). * 0install is/should-be fully integrated into GNU/Linux distributions ecosystem e.g. it is not about creating yet another distro, 0install will reuse PackageKit to install already packaged software. It will hande not only 0install depedencies but native packages as well (in any case any package within 0sugar is an entyty on OBS, some of these entities will be aliases for native packages, other will be built on OBS). * OBS will be used as only one place for all file sharing/packaging stuff. Sites like AMO will be used only as catalogs (users driven, e.g., reviews, ratings etc.) of applications - they will contain only 0install links (of files stored on OBS). Even more, OBS will be auto publish info about new versions/packages on AMO. Thanks for sharing this model. I can totally imagine a Gnome Marketplace along the lines
How about creating addons.gnome.org
Hi All, I sent this to the gnome-web-list but there was instructed to send it here, so it can be more widely discussed (and maybe also in the next gnome foundation meeting) The idea is simple (but long and complex to implement). I would love to have a site addons.gnome.org, so we can have nice database with plugins and other addons for desktop apps. The idea would be to borrow ideas from the addons site of mozilla and it should support different types of add-ons (for instance, for gedit, we have plugins, language files, style-themes to name a few). So what do you think about this? Greetings, José ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: How about creating addons.gnome.org
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 14:55, Jose Aliste jose.ali...@gmail.com wrote: Hi All, I sent this to the gnome-web-list but there was instructed to send it here, so it can be more widely discussed (and maybe also in the next gnome foundation meeting) The idea is simple (but long and complex to implement). I would love to have a site addons.gnome.org, so we can have nice database with plugins and other addons for desktop apps. The idea would be to borrow ideas from the addons site of mozilla and it should support different types of add-ons (for instance, for gedit, we have plugins, language files, style-themes to name a few). So what do you think about this? Sugar Labs maintains its own fork of addons.mozilla.org for Sugar activities: http://activities.sugarlabs.org/ Would be great if more people wanted to adapt AMO to non-Mozilla uses and share the cost of upstreaming those modifications. Implementation wasn't really long nor complex, but you need to decide if you really want to replace distributions as the means to distribute your software. Regards, Tomeu Greetings, José ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: How about creating addons.gnome.org
On Sun, 2010-08-08 at 08:55 -0400, Jose Aliste wrote: The idea is simple (but long and complex to implement). I would love to have a site addons.gnome.org, so we can have nice database with plugins and other addons for desktop apps. The idea would be to borrow ideas from the addons site of mozilla and it should support different types of add-ons (for instance, for gedit, we have plugins, language files, style-themes to name a few). So what do you think about this? +1 I think is a useful idea for our users Cheers, -- Juanjo Marin ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: How about creating addons.gnome.org
HI Tomeu, thanks for answering. Sugar Labs maintains its own fork of addons.mozilla.org for Sugar activities: http://activities.sugarlabs.org/ Would be great if more people wanted to adapt AMO to non-Mozilla uses and share the cost of upstreaming those modifications. Implementation wasn't really long nor complex, but you need to decide if you really want to replace distributions as the means to distribute your software. Well, they are plenty of gedit plugins out-there that are not Gnome-signed, and are not deploy in any distributions. Currently all these plugins live in different places (github, sourceforge, googlecode, etc. ) the idea would be to have them all together. Also, in gedit, many add-ons do not need to be software. They can be style-themes, language files, you name it. Also, there should be a clear distinction whether an addon is Gnome approved (meaning it is reviewed, translated, probably hosted in the gnome git somewhere) or the work of a freelance dev. Distributions are welcome to keep packaging any of the addons, as they do now, but normally the maintainer's cost of distributing 100 or more addons would be too high (in my opinion). In this sense, I would love to have an easy way of installing add-ons that does not require you to copy files to some hidden directories. We should have a command line gnome-addon install add-on-name, which will download and install the add-on. That would be really neat in my opinion. Greetings, José Regards, Tomeu Greetings, José ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: How about creating addons.gnome.org
Hi! Also, there should be a clear distinction whether an addon is Gnome approved (meaning it is reviewed, translated, probably hosted in the gnome git somewhere) or the work of a freelance dev. Distributions are welcome to keep packaging any of the addons, as they do now, but normally the maintainer's cost of distributing 100 or more addons would be too high (in my opinion). In this sense, I would love to have an easy way of installing add-ons that does not require you to copy files to some hidden directories. We should have a command line gnome-addon install add-on-name, which will download and install the add-on. That would be really neat in my opinion. While I would rather vote for a more complete GNOME Appstore solution in the far future (possibly based on OpenSuSE build service), some points to note: * This will only work for scripted plugins Python, Javascript, Ruby * All compiled languages will suffer depedency problems * It would mean that we install executable things into the user's home directory. Some admins might not like this though of course mozilla does the same. Security is an important point here. It is also a rather huge maintaince burden to check that the plugin works with the installed version of an application. But nevertheless, go for it if you have the time, it sounds like a good idea! Especially for the upcoming gnome-shell addons it could be a perfect place. Johannes signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: How about creating addons.gnome.org
El dg 08 de 08 de 2010 a les 08:55 -0400, en/na Jose Aliste va escriure: Hi All, I sent this to the gnome-web-list but there was instructed to send it here, so it can be more widely discussed (and maybe also in the next gnome foundation meeting) Hi, Thanks for taking the time to re-send on foundation-list. The idea is simple (but long and complex to implement). I would love to have a site addons.gnome.org, so we can have nice database with plugins and other addons for desktop apps. The idea would be to borrow ideas from the addons site of mozilla and it should support different types of add-ons (for instance, for gedit, we have plugins, language files, style-themes to name a few). So what do you think about this? I really think that this will make GNOME a more appealing desktop. If applications are enabled to use it and with one-click download and install them would make easier to convert users to developers since users can feel more easily to contribute an add-on (i.e. my favorite color scheme for gedit) than contributing directly to gedit. My concerns are mostly about sysadmin work, servers capacity and bandwidth. For the first should not be a problem since the foundation is planning to hire a sysadmin and there's also the volunteers (which I just added me on the mailinglist) The second and third are the hard ones, do we have resources to by and host a servers or a farm of servers to be able to cope up with the user demand? Cheers, Greetings, José ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list -- gil forcada [ca] guifi.net - una xarxa lliure que no para de créixer [en] guifi.net - a non-stopping free network bloc: http://gil.badall.net ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: How about creating addons.gnome.org
El dg 08 de 08 de 2010 a les 15:07 +0200, en/na Tomeu Vizoso va escriure: On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 14:55, Jose Aliste jose.ali...@gmail.com wrote: Hi All, I sent this to the gnome-web-list but there was instructed to send it here, so it can be more widely discussed (and maybe also in the next gnome foundation meeting) The idea is simple (but long and complex to implement). I would love to have a site addons.gnome.org, so we can have nice database with plugins and other addons for desktop apps. The idea would be to borrow ideas from the addons site of mozilla and it should support different types of add-ons (for instance, for gedit, we have plugins, language files, style-themes to name a few). So what do you think about this? Sugar Labs maintains its own fork of addons.mozilla.org for Sugar activities: http://activities.sugarlabs.org/ Hi, Didn't know about it. Does it comes with a program library so applications can hook up with so that applications can integrate it with it? Would be great if more people wanted to adapt AMO to non-Mozilla uses and share the cost of upstreaming those modifications. Implementation wasn't really long nor complex, but you need to decide if you really want to replace distributions as the means to distribute your software. Would be really useful if you can gives us figures on servers, bandwidth, etc that are needed to run it so that we can make our forecasts. Cheers, Regards, Tomeu Greetings, José ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list -- gil forcada [ca] guifi.net - una xarxa lliure que no para de créixer [en] guifi.net - a non-stopping free network bloc: http://gil.badall.net ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: How about creating addons.gnome.org
Le dimanche 08 août 2010 à 15:07 +0200, Tomeu Vizoso a écrit : Implementation wasn't really long nor complex, but you need to decide if you really want to replace distributions as the means to distribute your software. It would be great to find a way to integrate with distributions package management systems. Add-ons installed on a per-user basis (as Mozilla add-ons) are very annoying because they get updated when you're running the app instead of when running system updates, and they become very messy when you upgrade your whole distribution. Having one package for every add-on is not practical for distributions, but maybe addons.gnome.org could be a platform allowing distributions to collect series of plugins for one app and bundle them into a single package. It's usually very cheap to install a handful of scripts, even if you only want one of them. So, approved add-ons for a given application could automatically be committed to a module that would be packaged by downstream (gedit-plugins, totem-plugins). This way, updates can go through the standard process (updates, backports...). OTC, I fear that the extension of the add-ons concept will break the nice package management model by creating more and more breaches into it. There's no reason why add-ons shouldn't be handled the same way as other software. Another solution would be to extend package management systems to be more flexible WRT small software pieces like add-ons, e.g. by creating packages on-the-fly or something, but that's another story. Regards ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: How about creating addons.gnome.org
On Sun, 2010-08-08 at 15:28 +0200, Johannes Schmid wrote: Hi! Also, there should be a clear distinction whether an addon is Gnome approved (meaning it is reviewed, translated, probably hosted in the gnome git somewhere) or the work of a freelance dev. Distributions are welcome to keep packaging any of the addons, as they do now, but normally the maintainer's cost of distributing 100 or more addons would be too high (in my opinion). In this sense, I would love to have an easy way of installing add-ons that does not require you to copy files to some hidden directories. We should have a command line gnome-addon install add-on-name, which will download and install the add-on. That would be really neat in my opinion. While I would rather vote for a more complete GNOME Appstore solution in the far future (possibly based on OpenSuSE build service), some points to note: I think the addons.gnome.org could be a first step for this. Another step on this direction could be to revamping the GNOME Software Map (there is a recent theat suggesting this on the marketing-list) and gnome tv. [1] http://mail.gnome.org/archives/marketing-list/2010-August/msg7.html * This will only work for scripted plugins Python, Javascript, Ruby * All compiled languages will suffer depedency problems * It would mean that we install executable things into the user's home directory. Some admins might not like this though of course mozilla does the same. Security is an important point here. It is also a rather huge maintaince burden to check that the plugin works with the installed version of an application. Yes, there are some technical open issues and resources problems to solve. Cheers, -- Juanjo Marin ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: How about creating addons.gnome.org
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 15:50, Gil Forcada gforc...@gnome.org wrote: El dg 08 de 08 de 2010 a les 15:07 +0200, en/na Tomeu Vizoso va escriure: On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 14:55, Jose Aliste jose.ali...@gmail.com wrote: Hi All, I sent this to the gnome-web-list but there was instructed to send it here, so it can be more widely discussed (and maybe also in the next gnome foundation meeting) The idea is simple (but long and complex to implement). I would love to have a site addons.gnome.org, so we can have nice database with plugins and other addons for desktop apps. The idea would be to borrow ideas from the addons site of mozilla and it should support different types of add-ons (for instance, for gedit, we have plugins, language files, style-themes to name a few). So what do you think about this? Sugar Labs maintains its own fork of addons.mozilla.org for Sugar activities: http://activities.sugarlabs.org/ Hi, Didn't know about it. Does it comes with a program library so applications can hook up with so that applications can integrate it with it? Would be great if more people wanted to adapt AMO to non-Mozilla uses and share the cost of upstreaming those modifications. Implementation wasn't really long nor complex, but you need to decide if you really want to replace distributions as the means to distribute your software. Would be really useful if you can gives us figures on servers, bandwidth, etc that are needed to run it so that we can make our forecasts. Sorry, I did the initial porting but have been away from it since then. I'm sure that the admins in sugar-de...@lists.sugarlabs.org will be happy to share the data about usage stats and resource consumption. Regards, Tomeu Cheers, Regards, Tomeu Greetings, José ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list -- gil forcada [ca] guifi.net - una xarxa lliure que no para de créixer [en] guifi.net - a non-stopping free network bloc: http://gil.badall.net ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: How about creating addons.gnome.org
Hi, On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 10:28 AM, Tomeu Vizoso to...@sugarlabs.org wrote: On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 15:50, Gil Forcada gforc...@gnome.org wrote: El dg 08 de 08 de 2010 a les 15:07 +0200, en/na Tomeu Vizoso va escriure: On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 14:55, Jose Aliste jose.ali...@gmail.com wrote: Hi All, I sent this to the gnome-web-list but there was instructed to send it here, so it can be more widely discussed (and maybe also in the next gnome foundation meeting) The idea is simple (but long and complex to implement). I would love to have a site addons.gnome.org, so we can have nice database with plugins and other addons for desktop apps. The idea would be to borrow ideas from the addons site of mozilla and it should support different types of add-ons (for instance, for gedit, we have plugins, language files, style-themes to name a few). So what do you think about this? Sugar Labs maintains its own fork of addons.mozilla.org for Sugar activities: http://activities.sugarlabs.org/ Hi, Didn't know about it. Does it comes with a program library so applications can hook up with so that applications can integrate it with it? Would be great if more people wanted to adapt AMO to non-Mozilla uses and share the cost of upstreaming those modifications. Implementation wasn't really long nor complex, but you need to decide if you really want to replace distributions as the means to distribute your software. Would be really useful if you can gives us figures on servers, bandwidth, etc that are needed to run it so that we can make our forecasts. Sorry, I did the initial porting but have been away from it since then. I'm sure that the admins in sugar-de...@lists.sugarlabs.org will be happy to share the data about usage stats and resource consumption. Regards, Tomeu Tomeu, is the source of addons.mozilla.org or activities.sugarlabs.org publicly available under an open source license? If so, could you point me out to it? Greetings, José ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: How about creating addons.gnome.org
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 9:28 AM, Johannes Schmid j...@jsschmid.de wrote: Hi! Also, there should be a clear distinction whether an addon is Gnome approved (meaning it is reviewed, translated, probably hosted in the gnome git somewhere) or the work of a freelance dev. Distributions are welcome to keep packaging any of the addons, as they do now, but normally the maintainer's cost of distributing 100 or more addons would be too high (in my opinion). In this sense, I would love to have an easy way of installing add-ons that does not require you to copy files to some hidden directories. We should have a command line gnome-addon install add-on-name, which will download and install the add-on. That would be really neat in my opinion. While I would rather vote for a more complete GNOME Appstore solution in the far future (possibly based on OpenSuSE build service), some points to note: * This will only work for scripted plugins Python, Javascript, Ruby * All compiled languages will suffer depedency problems * It would mean that we install executable things into the user's home directory. Some admins might not like this though of course mozilla does the same. Security is an important point here. Yes, security is important, I agree with you, I am thinking on implementing the easy installation only for non-compiled add-ons (you can still host the C plugins in the addons site). I want to start more or less simple, so I can deploy something usable (hopefully) by Gnome 3.0 time. Even without the easy installation thing, having just a fork of the addons.mozilla.org would be neat. It is also a rather huge maintaince burden to check that the plugin works with the installed version of an application. But nevertheless, go for it if you have the time, it sounds like a good idea! Especially for the upcoming gnome-shell addons it could be a perfect place. Johannes ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: How about creating addons.gnome.org
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 16:36, Jose Aliste jose.ali...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 10:28 AM, Tomeu Vizoso to...@sugarlabs.org wrote: On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 15:50, Gil Forcada gforc...@gnome.org wrote: El dg 08 de 08 de 2010 a les 15:07 +0200, en/na Tomeu Vizoso va escriure: On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 14:55, Jose Aliste jose.ali...@gmail.com wrote: Hi All, I sent this to the gnome-web-list but there was instructed to send it here, so it can be more widely discussed (and maybe also in the next gnome foundation meeting) The idea is simple (but long and complex to implement). I would love to have a site addons.gnome.org, so we can have nice database with plugins and other addons for desktop apps. The idea would be to borrow ideas from the addons site of mozilla and it should support different types of add-ons (for instance, for gedit, we have plugins, language files, style-themes to name a few). So what do you think about this? Sugar Labs maintains its own fork of addons.mozilla.org for Sugar activities: http://activities.sugarlabs.org/ Hi, Didn't know about it. Does it comes with a program library so applications can hook up with so that applications can integrate it with it? Would be great if more people wanted to adapt AMO to non-Mozilla uses and share the cost of upstreaming those modifications. Implementation wasn't really long nor complex, but you need to decide if you really want to replace distributions as the means to distribute your software. Would be really useful if you can gives us figures on servers, bandwidth, etc that are needed to run it so that we can make our forecasts. Sorry, I did the initial porting but have been away from it since then. I'm sure that the admins in sugar-de...@lists.sugarlabs.org will be happy to share the data about usage stats and resource consumption. Regards, Tomeu Tomeu, is the source of addons.mozilla.org or activities.sugarlabs.org publicly available under an open source license? If so, could you point me out to it? Both are FOSS, you can find links to the code (along with many details) here: http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Activity_Library/Devel Regards, Tomeu Greetings, José ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: [Sugar-devel] Fwd: How about creating addons.gnome.org
On Sun, Aug 08, 2010 at 04:11:38PM +0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: Hi, the GNOME people are having an interesting discussion about AMO. Regards, Tomeu -- Forwarded message -- From: Johannes Schmid j...@jsschmid.de Date: Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 15:28 Subject: Re: How about creating addons.gnome.org To: Jose Aliste jose.ali...@gmail.com Cc: Tomeu Vizoso to...@sugarlabs.org, foundation-list@gnome.org Hi! Also, there should be a clear distinction whether an addon is Gnome approved (meaning it is reviewed, translated, probably hosted in the gnome git somewhere) or the work of a freelance dev. Distributions are welcome to keep packaging any of the addons, as they do now, but normally the maintainer's cost of distributing 100 or more addons would be too high (in my opinion). In this sense, I would love to have an easy way of installing add-ons that does not require you to copy files to some hidden directories. We should have a command line gnome-addon install add-on-name, which will download and install the add-on. That would be really neat in my opinion. While I would rather vote for a more complete GNOME Appstore solution in the far future (possibly based on OpenSuSE build service), some points to note: * This will only work for scripted plugins Python, Javascript, Ruby * All compiled languages will suffer depedency problems * It would mean that we install executable things into the user's home directory. Some admins might not like this though of course mozilla does the same. Security is an important point here. It is also a rather huge maintaince burden to check that the plugin works with the installed version of an application. But nevertheless, go for it if you have the time, it sounds like a good idea! Especially for the upcoming gnome-shell addons it could be a perfect place. Johannes Being AMO maintainer on http://activities.sugarlabs.org/, I can share my own experience in code sharing case. There is a problem w/ AMO. AMO, as filesharing tool, works well only for one-file bundles w/ anyarch data, trying to reuse AMO for not trivial cases like binaries, e.g. different ABIs etc., sound overkill for AMO. In any case it will be just a hosting for files, all releated issue like depedencies is not handled by AMO. Right now, I'm working on different model - Zero Sugar [1]. The core things are: * everything starts with spec file of the package - recipe file [2] * it will be possible to local launch application only having this spec file and sources tarball/vcs-checkout (in noarch case, or build application locally and start it) * keeping in mind variety of users environments and things like ABI breakages (or even different build flags on different distros), it would be useful to just build application in this particular environment. So, using [2] recipe file, on patched OBS (in progress), it will be possible to create native packages for bunch of deb/rpm distros. It sounds like meta packaging but it is not [3]. * The important thing, installing applications from OBS repos is not primary distribution method (it will work fine in case of centralized repo of applications on OBS, but attaching repositories from individuals(in my mind, regular behaviour in sugar ecosystem), i.e., from home projects on OBS, will be really overkill). The first distribution method will be 0install [4]. So, OBS will create not only native packages but 0install feeds as well (for nonarch applications, only 0install feeds, for binary based, 0install will reuse native packages). * 0install is/should-be fully integrated into GNU/Linux distributions ecosystem e.g. it is not about creating yet another distro, 0install will reuse PackageKit to install already packaged software. It will hande not only 0install depedencies but native packages as well (in any case any package within 0sugar is an entyty on OBS, some of these entities will be aliases for native packages, other will be built on OBS). * OBS will be used as only one place for all file sharing/packaging stuff. Sites like AMO will be used only as catalogs (users driven, e.g., reviews, ratings etc.) of applications - they will contain only 0install links (of files stored on OBS). Even more, OBS will be auto publish info about new versions/packages on AMO. [1] http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Activity_Team/Zero_Sugar [2] http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Activity_Team/Zero_Sugar/0sugar.info_Specification [3] http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Activity_Team/Zero_Sugar/Native_Packages [4] http://0install.net/goals.html -- Aleksey ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
