Re: License information for extensions on LO's extension site

[Heiko Tietze <tietze.heiko@xxxxxxxxx>]

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 <sbergman@xxxxxxxxxx> 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="" 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice