GNOME 3 [was Re: GNOME following a non-free standard]

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.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]