Difference between revisions of "Activity Library/Editors/Policy/Non-Technical"

From Sugar Labs
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 4: Line 4:
  
 
* inappropriate(violent, sexual, subversive content) content
 
* inappropriate(violent, sexual, subversive content) content
* non-FOSS licence, any restriction for essential(for education, some people think, essential for
+
* inappropriate licence
other cases too:) behaviour, free to run|study|redistribute|change
+
** code should be covered by one of [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses FSF GPL compatible list]
** code should conform [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses FSF GPL compatible list]
 
 
** the rest of content should one of [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ CC] licences
 
** the rest of content should one of [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ CC] licences
 
* (?) activity is just bundled application which already (well)packaged in various distros
 
* (?) activity is just bundled application which already (well)packaged in various distros

Revision as of 10:33, 11 December 2009

Some points that could be considered during activity review(maybe some of activities should be removed at all).

Reasons for removing

  • inappropriate(violent, sexual, subversive content) content
  • inappropriate licence
  • (?) activity is just bundled application which already (well)packaged in various distros
  • ...

Reasons for retain in sandbox

  • (?) lack of educational value
    arguable, it could be something useful for user environment e.g. UsbCreator
    A: add such value :)
  • any confusion with already existed activities
    A: make difference more clear, obvious renaming, making notice in description etc.
  • ...