On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 5:32 AM, Richard Hughes <hughsient@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 24 January 2014 10:18, Christian Schaller <cschalle@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> ...writing up a technical specification of the product... > > I think this is going to be hard until we know more about the legal > side of things and what we're allowed to do. From my point of view, if > we can ship a google-chrome.repo file that's disabled and some > pre-prepared appstream metadata, it makes building the required > functionality in gnome-software quite easy. We can show the non-free > applications, and if the user clicks install we just need to show some > kind of agreement, download the metadata and then install the > application. The Board decision disallows this. > If we can't ship the AppStream metadata or the disabled repo file then > we need some way of querying for search terms, for instance calling > out to a webservice on apps.fedoraproject.org that returns results for > a search term of "chrome" -- this will also need to return icons, > perhaps screenshots, and also some repo parameters and possible EULA > text. This would be possible to implement in a gnome-software plugin > and a chunk of new functionality in PackageKit, and would also need a > new webservice. So again, possible, just a little harder to implement. This is something that could be allowable, yes. Bill Nottingham came up with a similar cross-distro style service idea that is of course much broader, but might be easier to get vendors to participate in. josh -- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
