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@meego.com >> http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev >> > > _______________________________________________ > MeeGo-dev mailing list > MeeGo-dev@meego.com > http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev _______________________________________________ MeeGo-dev mailing list MeeGo-dev@meego.com http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev
