> - Original message -
> From: quim@nokia.com
> To: meego-community@meego.com
> Subject: [MeeGo-community] The meego.com update plan (including Apps,
Planet, etc)
> Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 18:55:45 +
>
>
>Hi, read the following if you are involved in the development of
>
> - meego.co
Hi,
Carsten Munk wrote:
> It is a difficult issue for sure, but one we really need to solve:
Experience has shown that changing people's email behaviour in a durable
way will not happen with the stick alone. People need to learn &
understand the benefit of dealing in the open.
So we need to be
Hi, read the following if you are involved in the development of
- meego.com
- developer.meego.com
- planet.meego.com
- conference.meego.com
- The apps catalog
- Community OBS
- Packages interface
http://wiki.meego.com/Marketing/Meego.com_1.2_update is the starting point to
follow all the *.meeg
2010/12/18
> I agree the CC syndrome is a problem, but I'm not sure that adding a CC
> will fix it.
>
> One part of the problem is simply inertia: many people has just spent too
> much time in CC discussions. Another part of the problem is that some people
> don't want to bother more than the ind
I agree the CC syndrome is a problem, but I'm not sure that adding a CC will
fix it.
One part of the problem is simply inertia: many people has just spent too much
time in CC discussions. Another part of the problem is that some people don't
want to bother more than the individuals related to a
Andrew Wafaa wrote:
> I am looking at alternatives for the MeeGo based DE in openSUSE to try
> and comply with MeeGo's wishes for their trademark on names.
Thank you.
> One major issue that distributions will have is that of MeeGo
> trademarked artwork being littered in packages that are under LG
Dave wrote:
> Perhaps you missed the comments I made pointing out why this is polemic
> on the wiki?
Mmm... perhaps I did, sorry.
> The issue is, as you suggest, in the UX code, not the core platform. We
> should try to name the MeeGo UXes (that is, the collection of packages
> which make up the
MJ Ray wrote:
> > As said, as long as you respect the license of the package you are
> > free to reuse, redistribute, etc, keeping the original name of the
> > package.
>
> Assuming you mean "copyright license of the package" and not the
> trademark licensing under discussion, then I think that wo
