But doesn't it depend on whether you let the admin or the user agree? Anyway,
the platform itself has a license selection and there confusion started for me
(forgot the license file in one of my extensions). So we definitely have room
for improvements nevertheless Andreas awesome work around the platform.
On 30 August 2018 12:19:13 CEST, Stephan Bergmann <sberg...@redhat.com> wrote:
>I don't find a way to comment directly at
><https://amantke.de/2018/08/29/some-hints-on-publishing-extensions/>,
>so
>moving that here. Quoting that blog post:
>
>[...]
>> But without a proper license the Extension it is not appropriate to
>publish the Extension on the LibreOffice Extensions website.
>>
>> But it is not a very difficult task to add such a license information
>to the Extension. Just add a text file with the license to the
>Extension (zipped) container (preferably in a subfolder) and update the
>description.xml with the following xml-tag:
>>
>> <registration>
>> <simple-license accept-by=”admin” suppress-on-update=”true” >
>> <license-text xlink:href=”<relative link to the license file>”
>> lang=”en” />
>> </simple-license>
>> </registration>
>
>The description.xml simple-license element is about asking the user to
>actively accept a license before installing/using the extension. This
>is awkward UX and I guess that many extensions do not want to bother
>users with click-through license bla bla.
>
>I don't think that it is a good idea to tie the question of whether an
>extension is suitably licensed for publishing on LO's extension site to
>
>the presence of such a simple-license element.
>_______________________________________________
>LibreOffice mailing list
>LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
>https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
