Difference between revisions of "Liblicense 04 release todo"
m |
m |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
* features | * features | ||
| − | ** KDE4 integration | + | ** <del>KDE4 integration</del> |
| − | *** system settings module | + | *** <del>system settings module</del> |
| − | *** file properties license tab | + | *** <del>file properties license tab</del> |
** OLPC integration | ** OLPC integration | ||
*** Journal integration | *** Journal integration | ||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
** are there sample files somewhere I can test the nautilus extension on? | ** 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. | ** 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 | * tag svn | ||
Revision as of 21:47, 1 August 2007
- features
KDE4 integrationsystem settings modulefile properties license tab
- OLPC integration
- Journal integration
- GUI i18n (liblicense core already handled)
- Expand liblicense API to allow dynamically populating the jurisdiction selector
- 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
- 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.
- 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)
- source
- rpm
- deb
- ebuilds (bugs 187196, 185689, and 78021 in gentoo's bugzilla)
- test them!
- Known dependencies.
- libraptor
- nautilus-python
- exempi
- publicity
- freshmeat
- sourceforge
- ?
Asheesh's comments
default-content-license
- In "Creative Commons - Attribution-NoDerivs - 3.0.0", 3.0.0 really should be 3.0
- Also, default-content-license seems to allow you to check boxes to create combinations where no license exists. That's quite odd.
- 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 --quiet
- How do I *unset* a license on a document?
