[Portland] Proposal - desktop-integration-utils

[Kevin Krammer]

On Wednesday 15 March 2006 17:54, Bastian, Waldo wrote:

> >Should a specification arrive for one of the problems solved by the
> >scripts,
> >it can be implemented in program with "xdg-" prefix without requiring
>
> full
>
> >parameter compatability.
>
> I don't see anything wrong with requiring parameter compatibility.

It limits the potential of the new tools.
For example kfmclient exec can take additional options but the wrapper script 
just uses the default case.

This is fine for a wrapper, it is a least common denominator solution.

A future tool for an "file open" specification might want to have more 
flexibility than what a long time ago wrapper could offer.

However, since anyone else seems to like the current naming scheme, I guess 
that I am just too cautious :)

> >Since they are external executables, would ISVs find a GPL like licence
> >stil too restrictive?
>
> I think it's ok for the binaries but I would release the scripts under
> something BSD like. The GPL tends to trigger more internal bureaucracy.

I can agree on a 2-clause BSD licence though I would prefer GPL for 
executables.

For the DAPI code Lubos and I already agreed on BSD IIRC

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/b8cef335/attachment.pgp