On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 4:21 PM, Greg KH <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 04:23:30PM +0200, Thiago Macieira wrote: >> Just because connman is a small component and has a fairly self-contained API >> and predictable behaviour, it's not an exception to the rule. You must use >> the >> components, all of them, in the same versions. > > Ah, so the same will be said for banshee and evolution as well? Oh > wait, I see people replacing them already and no one putting up such a > stink. Now why is that... > >> If an exception to connman is opened, then another will turn up for >> bash, one for uclibc, and so forth, to the point that it fragments the >> stack. > > Sounds good to me :) > > Seriously, the main issue here is the insistance that one must follow > the rules, only to have the question "what are the rules" be answered as > "we are still trying to figure that out, wait a few months."
Also it seems that the rules are being put in place so application writers that write apps for the proprietary app store will have a guarantee to work on all MeeGo variants but Fedora at least has no interest in supporting the proprietary store and won't support it. In that regard I can see why they want to have the guaranteed API but it shows that there should be the equivalent to the Fedora secondary "Fedora Remix" [1] trademark that allows us to credit the upstream work but also indicate that we're not 100% compliant so if the user wants things like the app store they should go elsewhere. Sort of like what happens with Android and their market place. > That doesn't work for a product that is currently shipping. > > And, to answer the private question a few people have asked me, "why are > you asking all of these questions, why not just not use the MeeGo name > at all?" Well, it's about recognizing the contributions of those that > you build something on. I know not all people/companies do that all the > time (present drivers of MeeGo included), but some of us want to do the > "right thing" here. > > Unfortunately, they are making it impossible for us to do so, so I'm > thinking that you will start to see "netbook" like respins of Fedora and > openSUSE and other distros that might happen to look like they came from > the MeeGo codebase, but not mention MeeGo at all. Sad it's had to come > to this. Agreed. See some of my comments above. Peter [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal/Secondary_trademark_usage_guidelines _______________________________________________ MeeGo-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev
