Update Talk:Policy

Some great stuff here, for sure, but I'm having a bit of trouble separating "goal" from "execution". F.e.: is the no-unnecessary-eval-of-remote-JS really a goal, or something that we require in service of a goal? It seems like the latter, similar to "AMO-hosted update.rdf", but the goal that those are in service of isn't well-articulated.

This may well be obvious to everyone but me, but I think it would help a lot to collect the goal-level statements somewhere for people to discuss distinct from the implementation issues.

Shaver 05:46, 5 April 2006 (PDT)

I'm wondering if there are any plans to make restrictions to 'commercial' extensions, that is, extensions created to extend commercial products, and/or to 'community' extensions, that is, extensions created to enable easier access to community sites (forums, games, etc.). Personally, I believe both kinds of extensions are so specific in their purpose, and so un-useful to the general consumer that they don't really have a place on AMO. Additionally, they are a pain to review since they generally require account signups, and even in that case it's sometimes hard to evaluate what the additional value provided by the extension is for the game/product/forum.

I'd also like better requirements for addon reviewers, since right now there is no real clarity over what description they should fit.

GijsKruitbosch 12:57, 13 April 2006 (PDT)

License / Source

With many plugins I found it difficult to find the license terms, I think it should be a requirement that the license is clear to allow filtering by license when looking for add-ons on https://addons.mozilla.org/.

I personally really wouldn't care about the license from a user perspective, but I would think they are useful for developers and/or admins in case of disputes. For instance, recently a theme or extension was using some icons from another theme or extension - whether or not that is OK depends in part on licenses for those themes and/or extensions. These are often hard to find, so having addon developers specify them on submit seems like a good plan. GijsKruitbosch 02:07, 20 December 2006 (PST)

I'm a bit confused by your answer. Of course most users don't care about license and ignore that they may be forced to pay a license fee to access their data in future, unable to access it from another platform or find them self unable to adapt the software to their changing needs. But I think mozilla should foster awareness for the benefit of open source and provide at least support for those who prefer not to install any plugin that cannot be modified under similar terms as the extended program. Personally I would prefer a big warning "This plugin is not OSI compliant, by installing it you're leaving the free world" :-).

--Reto 09:00, 24 January 2007 (PST)