Difference between revisions of "Liblicense 04 release todo"
m (→default-content-license) |
|||
| (13 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
*** <del>system settings module</del> | *** <del>system settings module</del> | ||
*** <del>file properties license tab</del> | *** <del>file properties license tab</del> | ||
| − | ** OLPC integration | + | ** <del>OLPC integration</del> (nearly done but will be external of ll releases) |
| − | *** Journal integration | + | *** <del>Journal integration</del> |
| − | ** GUI i18n (liblicense core already handled) | + | ** <del>GUI i18n (liblicense core already handled)</del> |
| − | ** Expand liblicense API to allow dynamically populating the jurisdiction selector | + | ** <del>Expand liblicense API to allow dynamically populating the jurisdiction selector</del> |
| − | ** Automated regression testing, especially for io modules. We need to be *absolutely certain* that data won't be lost | + | ** <del>Automated regression testing, especially for io modules. We need to be *absolutely certain* that data won't be lost</del> |
| − | + | ** <del>ODF support (jakin) :) Solve the problem for the world and get all the fame and glory!</del> | |
* bugs/issues | * bugs/issues | ||
| − | ** License chooser api ironing out (http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-devel/2007-July/000539.html). I could wrap the flags to hide the bit-shifting -- but before I do that, I want feedback as to whether this design, in general, works. | + | ** <del>License chooser api ironing out (http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-devel/2007-July/000539.html). I could wrap the flags to hide the bit-shifting -- but before I do that, I want feedback as to whether this design, in general, works.</del> |
** Use SONAME so applications can request a particular version of liblicense's API/ABI | ** Use SONAME so applications can request a particular version of liblicense's API/ABI | ||
*** Debian will require this (and everyone else is crazy if they don't) | *** Debian will require this (and everyone else is crazy if they don't) | ||
*** I found [http://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-toolchain/1998/07/17/0000.html one explanation] of it while Googling | *** I found [http://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-toolchain/1998/07/17/0000.html one explanation] of it while Googling | ||
*** Jakin: I think this is a premature concern; once things stabilize I think this is a good idea. At version 0.3, people should expect that source and binary compatibility isn't guaranteed. | *** Jakin: I think this is a premature concern; once things stabilize I think this is a good idea. At version 0.3, people should expect that source and binary compatibility isn't guaranteed. | ||
| − | ** not clear what default-content-license does, exactly- maybe replace 'Default Content License' with 'choose the default license for new content you create' or something like that? (whatever is accurate :) | + | ** <del>not clear what default-content-license does, exactly- maybe replace 'Default Content License' with 'choose the default license for new content you create' or something like that? (whatever is accurate :) </del> |
| − | ** I'd get rid of the frame around the license chooser. Not used by most gnome apps. | + | ** <del>I'd get rid of the frame around the license chooser. Not used by most gnome apps.</del> |
** <del>URI: what goes there? I assume the license URI, but I'd expect the license chooser would set that, and it doesn't appear to.</del> (Changed to license URI. If license chooser doesn't set this field, then we've still got a problem) | ** <del>URI: what goes there? I assume the license URI, but I'd expect the license chooser would set that, and it doesn't appear to.</del> (Changed to license URI. If license chooser doesn't set this field, then we've still got a problem) | ||
** are there sample files somewhere I can test the nautilus extension on? | ** are there sample files somewhere I can test the nautilus extension on? | ||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
*** We've broken it up into liblicense{,-kde,-gnome} | *** We've broken it up into liblicense{,-kde,-gnome} | ||
| − | * tag svn | + | * <del>tag svn</del> |
* package (liblicense, liblicense-kde, and liblicense-gnome) | * package (liblicense, liblicense-kde, and liblicense-gnome) | ||
| − | ** source | + | ** <del>source</del> [https://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=80503&package_id=238700&release_id=533852 sf] |
| − | ** rpm | + | ** <del>rpm</del> |
** deb | ** deb | ||
** ebuilds (bugs 187196, 185689, and 78021 in gentoo's bugzilla) | ** ebuilds (bugs 187196, 185689, and 78021 in gentoo's bugzilla) | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | * Core dependencies: | |
| − | + | ** libraptor | |
| − | + | ** exempi | |
| − | + | * GNOME Integration dependencies: | |
| − | *** nautilus-python | + | ** liblicense python bindings |
| − | + | ** nautilus-python | |
| − | + | ** gnome-python | |
| − | + | * KDE4 Integration dependencies: | |
| + | ** kdelibs4 (tested on alpha2 and beta1) | ||
* publicity | * publicity | ||
| − | ** freshmeat | + | ** <del>freshmeat</del> |
| − | ** sourceforge | + | ** <del>sourceforge</del> |
| − | ** | + | ** CC techblog (scott's wrap-up) |
== Asheesh's comments == | == Asheesh's comments == | ||
=== default-content-license === | === default-content-license === | ||
* <del>In "Creative Commons - Attribution-NoDerivs - 3.0.0", 3.0.0 really should be 3.0</del> (API allows for arbitrary version divisions) | * <del>In "Creative Commons - Attribution-NoDerivs - 3.0.0", 3.0.0 really should be 3.0</del> (API allows for arbitrary version divisions) | ||
| − | * Also, default-content-license seems to allow you to check boxes to create combinations where no license exists. That's quite odd. | + | * <del>Also, default-content-license seems to allow you to check boxes to create combinations where no license exists. That's quite odd.</del> |
** jakin: I don't mind. In a general sense, those combinations could exist in the future. This license selector is not CC specific. | ** jakin: I don't mind. In a general sense, those combinations could exist in the future. This license selector is not CC specific. | ||
| − | * How do I unset the default license on my desktop? I ran it once, and it seemed to automatically save, and but I don't want to have set a default license. | + | * <del>How do I unset the default license on my desktop? I ran it once, and it seemed to automatically save, and but I don't want to have set a default license.</del> |
| − | * UI is way confusing, dudes | + | * <del>UI is way confusing, dudes</del> |
=== /usr/bin/license === | === /usr/bin/license === | ||
Latest revision as of 20:58, 22 August 2007
- features
KDE4 integrationsystem settings modulefile properties license tab
OLPC integration(nearly done but will be external of ll releases)Journal integration
GUI i18n (liblicense core already handled)Expand liblicense API to allow dynamically populating the jurisdiction selectorAutomated regression testing, especially for io modules. We need to be *absolutely certain* that data won't be lostODF support (jakin) :) Solve the problem for the world and get all the fame and glory!
- bugs/issues
License chooser api ironing out (http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-devel/2007-July/000539.html). I could wrap the flags to hide the bit-shifting -- but before I do that, I want feedback as to whether this design, in general, works.- Use SONAME so applications can request a particular version of liblicense's API/ABI
- Debian will require this (and everyone else is crazy if they don't)
- I found one explanation of it while Googling
- Jakin: I think this is a premature concern; once things stabilize I think this is a good idea. At version 0.3, people should expect that source and binary compatibility isn't guaranteed.
not clear what default-content-license does, exactly- maybe replace 'Default Content License' with 'choose the default license for new content you create' or something like that? (whatever is accurate :)I'd get rid of the frame around the license chooser. Not used by most gnome apps.URI: what goes there? I assume the license URI, but I'd expect the license chooser would set that, and it doesn't appear to.(Changed to license URI. If license chooser doesn't set this field, then we've still got a problem)- are there sample files somewhere I can test the nautilus extension on?
good packaging practice would break this into liblicense and liblicense-devel, one with the apps and app data another with the libraries. Not a huge deal, but would be necessary before getting it into fedora, for example.- We've broken it up into liblicense{,-kde,-gnome}
tag svn
- package (liblicense, liblicense-kde, and liblicense-gnome)
sourcesfrpm- deb
- ebuilds (bugs 187196, 185689, and 78021 in gentoo's bugzilla)
- Core dependencies:
- libraptor
- exempi
- GNOME Integration dependencies:
- liblicense python bindings
- nautilus-python
- gnome-python
- KDE4 Integration dependencies:
- kdelibs4 (tested on alpha2 and beta1)
- publicity
freshmeatsourceforge- CC techblog (scott's wrap-up)
Asheesh's comments
default-content-license
In "Creative Commons - Attribution-NoDerivs - 3.0.0", 3.0.0 really should be 3.0(API allows for arbitrary version divisions)Also, default-content-license seems to allow you to check boxes to create combinations where no license exists. That's quite odd.- jakin: I don't mind. In a general sense, those combinations could exist in the future. This license selector is not CC specific.
How do I unset the default license on my desktop? I ran it once, and it seemed to automatically save, and but I don't want to have set a default license.UI is way confusing, dudes
/usr/bin/license
-h should mean --help-m has a comma after it in --help-v should mean --verbose-q should mean --quietHow do I *unset* a license on a document?(New flag, --remove)
