Re: Certification for GNOME apps
- From: Behdad Esfahbod <behdad cs toronto edu>
- To: Jonathan Blandford <jrb redhat com>
- Cc: foundation-list gnome org, GNOME Desktop <desktop-devel-list gnome org>
- Subject: Re: Certification for GNOME apps
- Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 14:34:53 -0400 (EDT)
On Thu, 14 Jul 2005, Jonathan Blandford wrote:
> Behdad Esfahbod <behdad cs toronto edu> writes:
> > On Thu, 14 Jul 2005, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > On Mer, 2005-07-13 at 21:04, Jonathan Blandford wrote:
> > > > 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?
> > >
> > > I guess the extreme example might be "What do you do if someone comes to
> > > you with a HIG compliant, gtk+ using, accessible, i18n translated 'Bomb
> > > the New York Subway' game" [hello MI5]
> > >
> > > There are things you want a reason never to be associated with.
> > Or one day we may want to refuse certification from companies
> > that support the other operating system :D.
> > Is the foundation going to certify apps or are companies allowed
> > to evaluate and certify their own apps? If the former, should
> > there be any fee for getting GNOME certified?
> To make it more clear, the intention is to make this a
> self-certification system. We (GNOME) don't really want to get into the
> business of certifying at the moment, and we should make it clear that
> the products are certified aren't inherently endorsed by GNOME at all.
Then I don't see how Alan's point can be applied. Someone with a
Bomb... game should be free to label "GNOME certified" if it
happens to satisfy the technical aspects. And it should be clear
that it's a self-certificate. Maybe it should not be called a
certificate after all. "GNOME Friendly" may be a better term.
] [Thread Prev