Re: no external panels for gnome-control-center [was GNOME Feature Proposal: Backup]

[Olav Vitters <olav vitters nl>]

On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 11:43:08AM +0200, Luca Ferretti wrote:
> So IMHO choosing "a priori" what people can do and what people can't do
> is... well, censorship, sorry. Matthias said "maintaining meaningful
> boundaries between what is GNOME and what is not". Of course this is a
> way to maintain a strong identity[1], but how does it implies? That we
> have the Truth? And even if we had, we can't "annoying" restrain
> distros, third parties to modify and customize: this is a part of
> fundamental right of FLOSS.

GNOME is provided under the GPL (and other FLOSS licences like LGPL).

The control-center maintainers made a quick API for GNOME 3.0 only.
Saying the removal is censorship? What about all the options that are
not in the GNOME 3.0 control center? What about our license? What about
a maintainers decision and the goal of a project?

I think the last bit is the only one that the disagreement is about.

The goal is shifting from a 'mix and match' components as you please
towards relying more and more on specific components.

Your definition of censorship applies to everything that a maintainer
does. Not applying a patch or implementing a feature would also be
censorship.

GNOME is now way more design orientated; could also call it decisions..
or censorship. The latter has a strong emotional impression. I'd rather
have people talk about the goal of GNOME without too much emotional
implications. Too much emotions only leads to heated arguments and
people not listening to eachother anymore.
-- 
Regards,
Olav