Confirmed users
571
edits
Update:Remora Idea Dump: Difference between revisions
→Licensing
ChrisHofmann (talk | contribs) (→Search) |
|||
| Line 104: | Line 104: | ||
It would be great if each addon had a link to the licence or licenses it was available under, and to the source if the licence requires that distributors such as a.m.o. make it available. I believe we don't have a licensing policy for a.m.o, so it's all the more important to a) make it clear, and b) comply with whatever the licence is if it has things to say about distribution. [[User:Gerv|Gerv]] 14:09, 23 August 2006 (PDT) | It would be great if each addon had a link to the licence or licenses it was available under, and to the source if the licence requires that distributors such as a.m.o. make it available. I believe we don't have a licensing policy for a.m.o, so it's all the more important to a) make it clear, and b) comply with whatever the licence is if it has things to say about distribution. [[User:Gerv|Gerv]] 14:09, 23 August 2006 (PDT) | ||
: It's planned to have developers able to specify an EULA, and also for them to be able to use html in the developer notes about the add-on, so they could link to their source code there - is that enough? [[User:Cameron|Cameron]] 08:02, 24 August 2006 (PDT) | : It's planned to have developers able to specify an EULA, and also for them to be able to use html in the developer notes about the add-on, so they could link to their source code there - is that enough? [[User:Cameron|Cameron]] 08:02, 24 August 2006 (PDT) | ||
:: If you count the people who are asking for maintaining an "abandoned" extension, this is a very vital question because with the right license, a new fork could be started easily (and not and no more questions about if the license doesn't allow that). [[User:Archaeopteryx|Archaeopteryx]] 10:34, 23 November 2006 (PST) | |||
= Search = | = Search = | ||