Hrm. Okay. If we could look into this, it'd be great. I'm investigating
getting our apps into USC and this would be the most straight forward. We
could of course also go the Debian route, or try and get it included in
repos the normal way. But this way we could get it in right away and for
12.04.
O
I guess that only is the GSettings issue again. But becomes hard with
things like euclide which is build on top of scratch. Actually it is
scratch with a specific set of plugins, which in this case would need to
be loaded from a different location instead of a central directory. That
would cause th
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 wrote:
> On 06/14/12 19:46, Cassidy James wrote:
> > Hey everyone,
> >
> > I've been checking into the requirements for u
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-c
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 insta
I think in some cases, we need the names, so that these can be more easily
contacted by anybody who has a question.
Either way, I'll update the coding style. *From now on, we'll use the
second one*.
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 7:51 AM, Jaap Broekhuizen wrote:
> I would vote the second one too, it l
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 elem
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 nam
Hi,
2012/6/14 Jaap Broekhuizen
> 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
2012/6/14 Christian Dywan :
> 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.
+1
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.en.html
--
Sergey "Shnatsel" Davidoff
OS a
10 matches
Mail list logo
