[MeeGo-dev] Meego spec - for comment
mark.skarpness at intel.com
Fri Sep 17 17:09:16 PDT 2010
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
>> 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.
>> MeeGo-dev mailing list
>> MeeGo-dev at meego.com
> MeeGo-dev mailing list
> MeeGo-dev at meego.com
More information about the MeeGo-dev