Printable View
I agree with Jam, z33z and vortex2. Developers should have the choice between releasing their extensions with FU only or release their extension with FU and other ways they want.
Like vortex2 says, releasing an extension with FU only protects it against pirates and prevents the users to be confused with different versions of one extension over the web.
If the developers don't want to release their extensions with FU, I think they should explicitly mention it to CT and me (for the moment).
I am not sure why there would be a problem with distributing with FU.
I had not anticipated any reason for not wanting your extension distributed via a certain means as it poses no restrictions, impositions, or other problems that I can see.
To clarify, I didn't say that non-contracted extensions should be exclusively distributed by Fusion Updater, only that they be made available to it both for the users and to assure that FU is comprehensive and desirable.
Maybe someone could give me more insight as to what problems or restrictions a developer would incur if they participated in the updater program?
You can't do anything without Sphax, like uploading an update.
Will FU itself be CT Certified, so it Sphax disappears everything works as it should?
Once we get going and things are working right and debugged I would expect we will build a web based backend where a Clickteam employee would be able to update the system and/or developers would be able to update extensions themselves.
Currently yes because it's the launch but I'll release to Clickteam all necessary tools when it will be ok. Currently, I do it for CT.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jam
But for updates, Fusion Updater will have an autoupdater for itself.
FU is certified by Clickteam. Yves has worked with me on it, for the security part.Quote:
Originally Posted by z33z
The focus is on the extensions and the users, really.
If we focus on the outcome only, then it is hard to imagine a switch from Bonus Packs to dynamic, easy to acquire extensions and updates as a problem in itself.
I am only seeing benefits here for devs who want to see their work distributed widely in an effective manner and for users who will quickly be made aware of what's new and what version is available.
I say that as long we can also publish Serial-Protected installers in addition to the FU publishing, it's fine with me.
If I must have a choice between FU and Serial-Protect installers, I would choose the installers, as I can put a direct download for them where ever I like to and they does not require the user to install an addition program to MMF2 to install them.
I am under the impression that the main reason that CT set up the EDT is for them to develop extensions which are securely released to encourage people to use legitimate versions of MMF.
From that point of view, it makes sense to release exclusively with FU.
I understand the objections though.
The Serial-Protected installers worked fine so far, so I can't see what can't we use both SPI and FU.