#57: Seeking Council feedback/input on draft third party software policy -------------------------+--------------------- Reporter: pfrields | Owner: Status: new | Priority: normal Component: General | Resolution: Keywords: workstation | -------------------------+---------------------
Comment (by uraeus):
In regards to 2 there is code for doing an extra dialog before enabling the installation of the software, including putting up a warning, I haven't really looked at it for a while as I felt the labelling stuff mostly made it redundant in the sense that it felt a bit over the top to both clearly label something as 3rd party and non-free and then also pop up a dialog asking the user if they really want to install this non-free 3rd party software.
As for 3, I agree about having a clear process, as for the details on 1 or more versions or who provides it I tried to leave it open to be something we could evolve and refine over time without having to make a big policy change process for it. I think when I wrote the original text I mostly thought about who would be the most likely party to be around for the longer run and I thought that if the upstream handles it then the upstream is likely to keep doing it for as long as the upstream is maintained, but I realize that we would need to evaluate the truth and validity of that one a case by case basis.