Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2011 Archives by date, by thread · List index

Le 2011-07-03 08:45, Andreas Mantke a écrit :
Hi Andrea, *,

Am Sonntag, 3. Juli 2011, 14:13:56 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
Andreas Mantke:
Am Montag, 27. Juni 2011, 19:02:42 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
For usability, I'd prefer not to have a default here. Otherwise, people
may overlook the field and it might well happen that someone uploads an
extension that gets tagged as "GPL" but actually has (within the OXT
file) a totally different license.

I changed the field, in which the contributor choose the license, from
drop down to radio format. I added also a warning text to the
description of the field:

Thanks Andreas, this is a significant improvement: sloppy authors will
now have to be aware of that field.

It's unfortunate that something released with the same license as the
LibreOffice new files cannot be uploaded properly due to the need to
choose only one license, but limitations due to the tools (something
that I cannot understand in general) will maybe be overcome in future.

maybe we can later on add one or more fields for license, so that one could choose
two or three licenses for the same file. I write this on my todo-list for the future

Coming to the contents, I have 3 questions about your screenshot:
- "Freeware" will block the upload, right? I.e., if someone chooses
   "Freeware" then the extension submission will be refused.
- Why is "Commercial License" in the list? GPL, LGPL and the other
   options listed are (also) commercial licenses, so it's redundant.
- I don't really want to start any discussions about this, but I'm not
   aware of a large number of extensions distributed under the "Zope
   Public License" while I would, say, expect that there will be
   extensions contributed under the Apache License. Of course the Apache
   License can fit in the category of "Approved by OSI" and "Approved by
   FSF", but maybe it deserves its own option. If this has already been
   examined, just ignore it. The first extension I'm going to contribute
   is under GPLv3 anyway...

I have not customized the list of licenses on my local box yet. We can decide which
licenses we will provide on the plattform. The contributor can choose only between
this licenses (the field is mandatory).



Could we order the list in the preference that we would prefer? If some submitters are unsure of the licence they may then adopt the licence listed at the top of this list. We could then have the least favourable on the bottom of the list. We need to make it obvious the preference of licence.



Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.