[MeeGo-dev] Meego spec - for comment

[Skarpness, Mark]

On Sep 17, 2010, at 4:43 PM, Will Marone wrote:

> On 9/17/2010 12:02 PM, Quim Gil wrote:
>> On Thu, 2010-09-16 at 12:13 +0200, ext Jeremiah Foster wrote:
>> 
>>> Forcing Extras out of compliance means you are disenfranchising your
>>> community.
>> 
>> No. Hosting any kind of free software apps and libraries regardless of
>> their official/unofficial , compliant/non-compliant and unstable/stable
>> status means that everybody is welcome at meego.com.
> Hosting is one thing, forcing them to accept an implicit stamp of inferiority 
> because it's not in a store with $0.99 next to its name is another.
> 
> Supposing I wrote software and made it available via Extras/Surrounds, why is my 
> app being there grounds to disqualify it for "compliance" even if it meets the 
> guidelines fully? Certainly that's insulting to the author and implies things 
> about their software that may be completely false.
If your app meets the guidelines fully - then it will be qualified for compliance.  You can distribute it via Extras / Surrounds or whatever other mechanism you choose.  Those building devices get to choose which sources of applications they make available on their device (i.e. just because you have a compliant app does not mean every device is required to make it available to the end user for installation - though if you have a good app, I would expect everyone to want it :-)

What we have been discussing on this thread is the guidelines themselves...
> 
> It does make paid apps look good though, I suppose.
> 
>> 
>> --
>> Quim
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> MeeGo-dev mailing list
>> MeeGo-dev at meego.com
>> http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> MeeGo-dev mailing list
> MeeGo-dev at meego.com
> http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev