I don't want to dive into this. I do want to correct some misconceptions of my views.
Key Point: When an LGPL dependence is made optional, I believe it is not that it is optionally removable/replaceable. My understanding is that it is optionally introduceable. Not optionally removed/replaced. I am concerned that this view of "optional" will be seen as gaming the policy on Category X software when it is time to have a Corinthia release approved by the Incubator PMC. I don't understand the inference that I don't see an editor as part of Corinthia. There is no basis for that inference. I thought having an editor was the whole point of the Corinthia model and the architectural approach. I have never said anything to the contrary. I have opinions about the building of an editor and I would be very disappointed if Corinthia did not provide at least one portably-compilable/-deployable editor. - Dennis PS: I am usually very careful to speak of source-code *releases* and binary *distributions.* If I have not made that clear in speaking of binaries, it is a mistake on my part. For example, when I say "Any project-provided binary distribution ..." I am not speaking of an Apache Project release, even when those are often produced in company with Apache releases. I thought I had cleared that up in previous conversations somewhere. PPS: Jar files, a form of binaries, are often provided for Java-based Apache Projects. These days, I would not be surprised to see signed libraries also be provided (i.e., DLLs and the ilk). -----Original Message----- From: jan i [mailto:j...@apache.org] Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 10:53 To: dev@corinthia.incubator.apache.org; Dennis Hamilton <dennis.hamil...@acm.org> Subject: Re: Is Qt the right choice ?? On 29 July 2015 at 17:56, Dennis E. Hamilton <dennis.hamil...@acm.org> wrote: [ ... ] > If an editor is to be a release from Corinthia, the challenge is to not > have a requirement for Qt, however that is accomplished. I have not > suggested that having an editor be abandoned. I have suggested that having > Qt be essential as the UI framework is a deal breaker. > You did not use the word "abandoned" but there were no doubt that you did not see an editor being part of corinthia Nobody have ever talked about making Qt essential, the word "optional" has always been used, because the implementation will of course be in a way that it can be replaced. It is however a misunderstand to assume that we have to provide multiple implementation for an optional component of the project.
