14
edits
Update:Remora Idea Dump: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
Electronical (talk | contribs) |
Electronical (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 92: | Line 92: | ||
It would be great if each addon had a link to the licence or licenses it was available under, and to the source if the licence requires that distributors such as a.m.o. make it available. I believe we don't have a licensing policy for a.m.o, so it's all the more important to a) make it clear, and b) comply with whatever the licence is if it has things to say about distribution. [[User:Gerv|Gerv]] 14:09, 23 August 2006 (PDT) | It would be great if each addon had a link to the licence or licenses it was available under, and to the source if the licence requires that distributors such as a.m.o. make it available. I believe we don't have a licensing policy for a.m.o, so it's all the more important to a) make it clear, and b) comply with whatever the licence is if it has things to say about distribution. [[User:Gerv|Gerv]] 14:09, 23 August 2006 (PDT) | ||
: It's planned to have developers able to specify an EULA, and also for them to be able to use html in the developer notes about the add-on, so they could link to their source code there - is that enough? [[User:Cameron|Cameron]] 08:02, 24 August 2006 (PDT) | : It's planned to have developers able to specify an EULA, and also for them to be able to use html in the developer notes about the add-on, so they could link to their source code there - is that enough? [[User:Cameron|Cameron]] 08:02, 24 August 2006 (PDT) | ||
= Developer feedback = | |||
After having a few discussions with extension developers, I found that they would really appreciate more information about the reviewing procedure. There is a section at [[Update:Website:DevelopersSection#Approval_Queue]], but the procedure entry is not filled yet. | |||
Maybe it's a good idea to include a link to a extension developer faq (or the wiki section) in the denial email message. | |||
= Addons.Mozilla.Org - improving extension Searches = | = Addons.Mozilla.Org - improving extension Searches = | ||
In my opinion, AMO is in need of an overhaul. There are so many good extensions out there, but finding them on AMO is difficult - for a number of reasons. A number of individual Bugs have long-been filed suggesting improvements for the site, but until the problem is attacked from a 'big picture' perspective, I don't foresee the site reaching its full potential. I filed [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=349430/ Bug 349430] to address the issue, and listed the 3 major problem areas and some considerations that need to be met in order to make AMO a user-friendly site. [[User:RenegadeX|RenegadeX]] 21:16, 25 August 2006 (PDT) | In my opinion, AMO is in need of an overhaul. There are so many good extensions out there, but finding them on AMO is difficult - for a number of reasons. A number of individual Bugs have long-been filed suggesting improvements for the site, but until the problem is attacked from a 'big picture' perspective, I don't foresee the site reaching its full potential. I filed [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=349430/ Bug 349430] to address the issue, and listed the 3 major problem areas and some considerations that need to be met in order to make AMO a user-friendly site. [[User:RenegadeX|RenegadeX]] 21:16, 25 August 2006 (PDT) | ||