Re: [Libreoffice-ux-advise] [sdremote] Version / License dialog needed?

Hi Stefan,

> + People don't always think of looking elsewhere first, they will
>  probably look at the application itself first. Also, maybe they
>  didn't get the Remote from the Play Store but from another source
>  where version numbers aren't displayed clearly. Or maybe they
>  sideloaded it and deleted the original APK file.

Version information always available at the Android Settings, no matter what is source of the APK. 
I am not a big fan of duplicating already available information, even if user should click two 
times more: «Menu → About» vs «Home → Settings → Applications → Remote».

Even if everyone is really about adding this information there is no talk about «Licenses» anymore, 
it is about version information which is placed at application settings usually — yep, it is 
confusing.

> + How about listing contributors? The remote is an open-source project
>  like the rest of LibreOffice and for enough people it is probably an
>  important motivator to be able to say "look here, I did part of this."
>  (LibreOffice has this information under the Credit button in the
>  About screen)

Open source is about community, not a single person or even list of them ;-) Actually this idea is 
mentioned at the Google Play description :-) Anyway, it will require parsing our Git logs before 
every release at least.

> + Can anybody help with whether we need licensing information? (The
>  remote is apparently licensed under MPL2, not LGPL, so not sure that
>  is necessary.)

Nope, I believe it is not. Required information mentioned at source code headers. Mentioning 
libraries is just a nice touch and because of that I intentionally added this screen. As I 
mentioned, there are no libraries except ones from the SDK, so there is nothing to mention. If you 
are interested, ActionBarSherlock was mentioned but this library was removed in favour of 
Google-provided one.

Don’t think I am aggressive or trying to save a couple of kilobytes :-) I just trying to say if 
there is no reason for it — there is no implementation. I included this screen with reason and it 
disappeared.

Best regards,
Artur.