On Mon, 2005-05-23 at 12:17 -0400, Luis Villa wrote: > Most non-free standards would specifically exclude implementation in > licenses we would consider acceptable, no? > > Luis (who thinks writing more proposals about gnome3, as opposed to > going and coding examples of the damn thing, is likely to be a waste > of time, sorry) Let me just put this point of view out in advance of GUADEC: The only form of "gnome3" that makes sense is to take a gnome-2.1x and call it 3.x. We know from experience that long, incoherent release cycles are a mistake. We know from experience that reimplementing code to new technology just because that new technology is cool is a mistake. We have no reason at all to break ABI/API in any fundamental way. ABI/API breakage has by itself *no* end user benefits so should have nothing to do with the major version of GNOME. We very much need a shared vision for where GNOME is going. We need lots of cool things for people to work on. We don't need a big list of random implementation details. Regards, Owen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ gnome-hackers mailing list gnome-hackers gnome org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-hackers