[Portland] Proposal - desktop-integration-utils

[Kevin Krammer]

On Wednesday 15 March 2006 16:24, Dan Kegel wrote:
> On 3/15/06, Kevin Krammer <kevin.krammer at gmx.at> wrote:
> > Referring to one of our other mails about namespacing:
> > It might be better to use a different prefix than "xdg-" so there is a
> > difference between scripts that work on freedesktop.org specifictions or
> > "standards" and scripts that unify access to tools provided by the DEs.
>
> Our scripts will *define* part of a freedesktop.org spec, I think.
> So I think it's fine to make this part of desktop-file-utils.

I was more referring to the namespacing problem.
The "open" script is currently called xdg-open

If we assume that at a later time a real open specification will arrive, the 
name "xdg-open" is no longer available because it is taken by our wrapper.


> > Since they are external executables, would ISVs find a GPL like licence
> > still too restrictive?
>
> Nah.  GPL is probably fine.  (That's the license currently used by
> desktop-file-utils.)

Good, I usually prefer to use GPL for executables, but I wanted to get your 
(ISVs) opinion on that.

Cheers,
Kevin
-- 
Kevin Krammer <kevin.krammer at gmx.at>
Qt/KDE Developer, Debian User
Moderator: www.mrunix.de (German), www.qtcentre.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/portland/attachments/20060315/ce565321/attachment.pgp