On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 5:32 AM, Richard Hughes <hughsient(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 24 January 2014 10:18, Christian Schaller
> ...writing up a technical specification of the product...
I think this is going to be hard until we know more about the legal
side of things and what we're allowed to do. From my point of view, if
we can ship a google-chrome.repo file that's disabled and some
pre-prepared appstream metadata, it makes building the required
functionality in gnome-software quite easy. We can show the non-free
applications, and if the user clicks install we just need to show some
kind of agreement, download the metadata and then install the
The Board decision disallows this.
If we can't ship the AppStream metadata or the disabled repo file
we need some way of querying for search terms, for instance calling
out to a webservice on apps.fedoraproject.org
that returns results for
a search term of "chrome" -- this will also need to return icons,
perhaps screenshots, and also some repo parameters and possible EULA
text. This would be possible to implement in a gnome-software plugin
and a chunk of new functionality in PackageKit, and would also need a
new webservice. So again, possible, just a little harder to implement.
This is something that could be allowable, yes. Bill Nottingham came
up with a similar cross-distro style service idea that is of course
much broader, but might be easier to get vendors to participate in.