Re: Certification for GNOME apps

Alan Cox <alan lxorguk ukuu org uk> writes:

> You also need a list of things that are not acceptable, things that
> regardless of how "GNOME" they are would damage the foundations 'good
> name'. Things like
> - Spyware
> - Applications which allow documents to spy on users without
> permission/by default (like possibly Adobe's javascript in pdf)
> - Software which is license violating
> - Software which otherwise harms the name of GNOME
> - "Software the foundation management believes would harm the reputation
> of GNOME"
> - Software where a referendum of members is called, counts achieved and
> the referendum is passed against certification [ie a last resort]

The first two seem like no-brainers, but what are you thinking of
'harming the name of GNOME'?  Is a clause requiring acceptable levels of
privacy sufficient?  Do you have other, concrete concerns here?

> > Level 2 - the app is actually written with GTK+.
> Why does this matter ? Surely it is about degrees of integration and HIG
> compliance.

The HIG doesn't define widget behavior very well.  Unless someone goes
to the trouble (and it doesn't really seem worth it) of doing this, the
only way to match the feel of GTK+ is to use GTK+.  Instead of 'written
with GTK+', we should require that standard GTK+ widgets be used, where

> > Level N - etc.
> I trust "open source" is a level too ?

Of course!

> Should the lowest levels be GNOME or Freedesktop ?

It would be nice to work with Freedesktop on this, but they should
define their own levels.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]