On Thu, 14 Jul 2005, Jonathan Blandford wrote: > Behdad Esfahbod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. > Thanks, > -Jonathan --behdad http://behdad.org/ _______________________________________________ foundation-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
