Re: Time for some Clarity (KDE, Qt, Open Source...)
Raul Miller wrote:
>
> Kevin Atkinson <kevina@clark.net> wrote:
> > In the process you also discovered that that due to a confusing
> > license the kdebase package is illegal. Also you seam to think that
> > Troll Tech does not want you to distribute their software.
>
> NO.
>
> I think that Troll Tech doesn't want us to distribute their software
> under the terms we distribute Debian. I'm sure they'd have no problem
> with us changing what we're doing to fit their model.
>
> > For there statement of the Qt issue go to
> > http://www.kde.org/whatiskde/qt.html. If you still see a program with
> > kdebase then you are redefining the term paranoid.
>
> I think by "a program" you meant "a problem".
>
> Also, I think you're moving from discussing technical issues to
> personal criticism. If you would please limit yourself to discussing
> objective facts, maybe we'd have something to talk about.
Yes I am, but not you in particular. The people who are trying to
distort the goals of the KDE and Qt project.
>
> Finally, I don't see anything in the above URL that talks about the
> issue I raised.
>
> > As far as Qt goes read the FAQ at http://www.troll.no/
> > faq-freeedition.html before you start arguing over the legal aspects
> > of it.
>
> The requested URL /faq-freeedition.html was not found on this server.
>
> > Also check out the announcement of the KDE Free Qt Foundation
> > at http://www.troll.no/announce/foundation.html.
>
> This still doesn't resolve the licensing conflict. It does suggest
> that the KDE license is not intended to mean what it says, however.
>
> > Also read /usr/doc/qt*/copyright included with any of the Qt packages
> > for a dissusion of packaging Qt.
>
> I've already read the Qt license.
It also included mail form grandting permission to package Qt.
>
> > The orignal reason I even brought the topic up is becuase I would like
> > to see Debain get more user friendly. In fact I wanted Debian to be
> > THE model for a complete user friendly system.
>
> Which is a fine goal as long as it doesn't override our underlying
> quality and distribution goals.
That is where we differ...
>
> > Things I would like to see:
> > An extremely easy to use install program that groups things not by
> > the particular program names but buy there functionality. For example
> > instead of having just one large X windows section have a sub category
> > called viewers then from there have options for gif, jpg, dvi, gs etc.
>
> Er.. "more user friendly" typically means doing what the user wants
> without requiring them to make complex choices.
Yes, I never siad it will be easy.
> Also, for the case of
> viewers, there are many viewers which will handle more than one kind of
> image. If the user has sufficient space, it's probably the right thing
> to just give them all relevant viewers...
>
> > Based on what views the user wants it will install the nessasary
> > programs. If the user wants to control exactly what's installed there
> > would be a option to prompt them for conformation. The system will
> > naturally support the addition of additional packages such as the
> > Debian non-free section.
>
> Of course, our current system does support this.
>
> > Once installed an extremely easy to configure system. Linuxconf
> > sounds good here. The system needs to be easy to use but powerful
> > enough to get the full functionality out of the programs. Ie, not just
> > some cheap configuration scripts/utilities.
>
> Again, ease of use means minimizing the choices (restrict to only the
> choices which are required by the user). Also, full functionality is
> different in different contexts.
>
> You're right that there's a lot more we can do in this area.
>
> > A coherent documentation section. No more of this info, man, html,
> > plain text, etc documents files all over the place. The system will
> > orignise all documents in a logical fashion under one system. HTML
> > sounds like the best canadate as info and man pages can easily be
> > converted to HTML. As much as possible the HTML would be lynx frindly
> > so that people don't need X to use the view the documentation.
>
> A coherent documentation section requires indexing the documentation
> properly. The distinct format issue is something of a red herring,
> and is better addressed by a proper mime-capable viewer.
Why? All of them can get converted very nicly in HTML.
> Which maybe means that lynx needs to be enhanced in some respect?
Perhapes...
>
> > A easy to set up X windows system. When setting up the display the
> > system will automatically get the appropriate server with out the need
> > of the user having to chose which one.
>
> We're somewhat constrained here by hardware. We can do this for some
> hardware, but I don't know about all hardware. The machine I'm composing
> this on won't run the vga16 server, for example (but will run the agx
> server, once I've hand-fed it some configuration information)
>
> > Once set up the X desktop should be so nice that users will never
> > want to go back to the Windows 95/98 again! KDE sounds really good
> > here.
>
> Another problem with the kde window manager is that it doesn't
> interoperate well with gnome...
That needs work.
> Also, I prefer using a different
> window manager (either enlightenment or 9wm, depending on context),
> or prefer to run without X at all.
>
That is your choice and it should support that too.
> > However unlike some other distrubation the OS should not have to use
> > X to get the full functionally of the distrubtion. This way it can be
> > easially used where the primary point of the machine is a server.
>
> Yep.
>
> > Now does Debian have the same goals?
>
> Some goals are the same.
>
> > If not I might just consider creating a distribution of Debian that
> > has these things. Never mind the fact that I have no idea what I am
> > doing. But hay, I managed to learn the C++ language with a project for
> > a C++ API for MySQL so why not...
>
> Also, because of the DFSG, you are free to derive your distribution from
> the debian main distribution. [This would not be true if we incorporated
> software with Qt style licenses into debian proper.]
I now release that. And lets just not discuss it any more. It does
have its marits which I agree with. However what I want does not fir
with those marits.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: