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
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
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
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,
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
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
6 matches
Mail list logo
