hi,

Cousin Ricky <ric### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> ...
> The main considerations are the license, namespace compliance, and what
> files should be bundled.
>
> TL;DR
> -----
> - All modules must be licensed under the LGPL.
> - All modules have a unique name and an optional unique prefix.
> - All filenames and most identifiers must be prefixed with the module
>   name or prefix to avoid namespace collisions with other Object
>   Collection modules.
> - Scene files and include files may contain ASCII only.
> - Your submission should include a sample image and a 160x120 thumbnail.

the GNU/CC licensing and the ASCII only issues have been mentioned, and, final
decision pending, will be acted on.  there is one new, added requirement now:
the descriptive text, ideally including documentation and scene/.inc file
comments, is expected to be in English.

the reason is a legacy of several dozen objects submitted in Spanish, only.
those will likely remain unavailable until translated.  (any native speakers, or
fluent + conversant with Central American cultures, with a little time on their
hands ?  ;-))


> ConvexLens, TextureGen, and TextureGen4.  These 3 modules should *not*
> share a directory with other Object Collection downloads.  Two other
> modules were once self-rated as non-compliant, but they have since been
> edited into full compliance.  ...

so, in the "legacy" data for TextureGen I see three versions, with the following
'standardsconformance:status' values recorded (in order): 3:2, 0:1, 1:1.  :-(

seems to me that when an administrator assesses an object / version for
compliance, all versions need taking into account, and there should only be "one
score", per object ?

(if you have a "private" list of assessments of various contributions, that
could (perhaps) serve as base going forward (o/wise most of the db's content
will remain "self-assessed"))


regards, jr.

Post a reply to this message