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 da
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 14:55, 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 woul
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 o
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
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
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-sen
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 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
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
ma
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
On Sun, 2010-08-08 at 16:10 +0200, Juanjo Marin wrote:
> 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.
Sorry fo the typo.
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 5:10 PM, Juanjo Marin wrote:
> 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
On Sun, 2010-08-08 at 16:06 +0200, Milan Botched- wrote:
> Having one package for every add-on is not practical for
> distributions,
That's why Johannes Schmid mentioned openSUSE Build Service. While the
name is somewhat misleading, OBS actually builds packages for a number
of distributions inclu
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 15:50, Gil Forcada 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 wrote:
>> > Hi All,
>> >
>> > I sent this to the gnome-web-list but there was instructed to send it
>> > here, so it can be m
Hi,
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 10:28 AM, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 15:50, Gil Forcada 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 wrote:
>>> > Hi All,
>>> >
>>> > I sent this to the gnome-web
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 9:28 AM, 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
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 16:36, Jose Aliste wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 10:28 AM, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
>> On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 15:50, Gil Forcada 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 wr
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
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 sour
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
>
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
Hi Steve,
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 8:50 AM, Steve Frécinaux wrote:
> 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 meet
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 "blessed"w
> would mean ar
Hi,
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 9:35 AM, Johannes Schmid 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-"blesse
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 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
Johannes Schmid wrote at 06:28 (EDT) on Monday:
> 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).
IANAL either, but I believe that is quite correct. Plugins to GPL'd
programs wou
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 16:01, Gil Forcada 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 wrote:
>> > Hi!
>> >
>> >> So to stress things, the site should clearly state that the plugins
>> >> are prope
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 th
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 w
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.
__
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 11:18 PM, Johannes Schmid 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 i
On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 06:38 -0700, Sandy Armstrong wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 11:18 PM, Johannes Schmid 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-
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 wrote:
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > >>>As all the applications involved are GPL'd
> > >>
> > >> Which applications are
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Shaun McCance 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
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 7:26 AM, Patryk Zawadzki wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Shaun McCance 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 allo
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 6:48 PM, Sandy Armstrong
wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 7:26 AM, Patryk Zawadzki 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 i
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 onl
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_ t
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
> wron
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
> installi
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 pro
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
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
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 syst
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
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 tha
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/foundati
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 sou
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
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/licen
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 lic
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 08:18:18 +0200 (CEST) Johannes Schmid wrote:
>>> As all the applications involved are GPL'd
>> Which applications are involved?
> Could you give examples inside the GNOME Desktop release set (not
> libraries)?
The already discussed Tomboy was the only one in the release set th
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
> Date: Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 15:28
> S
gt;>
>> -- Forwarded message --
>> From: Johannes Schmid
>> Date: Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 15:28
>> Subject: Re: How about creating addons.gnome.org
>> To: Jose Aliste
>> Cc: Tomeu Vizoso , foundation-list@gnome.org
>>
>>
>>
53 matches
Mail list logo
