On Sun, 2003-12-28 at 19:36, Ali Akcaagac wrote: > Andrew Sobola wrote: > > But if you're making a distribution that misses out some of the > > software that the release team (and therefore, indirectly, the > > foundation) has said _is_ GNOME, you're not distributing GNOME. > > Sorry but you are totally redefining the Licensing model that GNOME was > put under and with this you are cutting my freedom to do with the > software what I want. The philosophy of free software describes that the > user who uses free software which was put under the GNU/GPL or GNU/LGPL > to do whatever he/she wants with it as long as it is going conform with > the license. CVSGnome is entirely going conform with this licensing > model of using the GNOME components embedded in it's list. The > terminology GNOME is protected by the GNOME Foundation only to guarantee > that companies show up and abuse its name or claim ownership of it. I am > not abusing the name GNOME for commercial purposes or something. It's > simply a script not more not less. Well, I'm not changing any licenses or anybody's freedom. One of the things we do, as a community, is put together a GNOME Desktop [1]. Then we say, "Hey, this is the GNOME Desktop." We put it in a frilly box, and on the label is "GNOME Desktop." And people download it, and all is cool [2]. Of course there's other GNOME programs that make up people's desktop that aren't part of this boxed set. That's great, that's free software. And those are very important, and bundled in a most GNOME distributions. This isn't a legal issue or anything. I should have used "GNOME Desktop and Developer Platform" everywhere I used GNOME in the parent mail - it's difficult to refer to the official release that we put out. I didn't say CVSGnome was doing anything wrong. I was clarifying what the release team do, because it was indirectly asked. > > As I understand it, this is what CVSGnome used to do. And when > > that was the case, it was a very good argument for not including > > it in the release notes that tell you how to get GNOME. > > Don't forget that even JHBuild when it was included didn't contained all > the modules it has been expanded over the time thats true but it was > included that time without anyone complaining about it or rejecting it. > Even V-B-S was mentioned on developer.gnome.org for years while the list > is also far from complete and yet nobody has complained. When a buildscript misses out modules, we have problems because people don't test them. Luckily this sort of thing is generally fixed straight away since it's only an accident. > >From your point of view CVSGnome is just a 'modified' GNOME version but > why is Ximian Desktop included in the list ? It doesn't offer a full > GNOME in the way you understand it since it has a lot of modifications > in it as the wording 'modified' says on it's title and yet nobody > complained. But for CVSGnome people are making a lot of noise. No it's > bad, no it's not conform, sorry it misses the documentations (jesus > everyone makes mistakes) and thats reason enough to not include it. IIRC, no-one had got round to fiddling with the start pages. Then someone did. Now it's on them. Remember you're asking someone to grab the website CVS, update the files, commit it, check the update happens, grab a sysadmin to find out why the website build is broken *this* time... As with a lot of things, if you don't grab someone to specifically do it (or do it yourself, which unfortunately doesn't apply in this case), it doesn't get done. -- Andrew Sobala <aes gnome org> [1] Actually "GNOME Desktop and Developer Platform", D&DP, but that's a bit of a mouthful for me. [2] and froody
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part