Re: How about creating addons.gnome.org
Philip, It does appear that the inclusion of open and not free packages in GNOME is an exception, not rule. You can type the following (or equivalent apt) query on you system and analyze the result: sudo yum info installed *gnome*x86_64 *gnome*noarch | grep -E Name|License On my system out of 109 packages 4 combine GPL/LGPL with BSD license, one combines GPL/LGPL with MIT (compiz-gnome). On Tue, 2010-08-17 at 02:28 +0200, Philip Van Hoof wrote: On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 04:33 -0400, Richard Stallman wrote: Which applications are involved? There are some desktop apps that are LGPL'd or even [X11'd], for which non-free addons could legally be developed. In those cases, nonfree addons would be lawful, but they are still wrong. So we should make sure not to include them in any list. We should nothing except what GNOME as an organization agreed earlier. These are the current rules for module proposing. I don't see why a addons.gnome.org would need to be different: http://live.gnome.org/ReleasePlanning/ModuleProposing : Free-ness: Apps must be under a Free or Open license and support open standards and protocols. In case of doubt about the module license, send an email to the Release Team and the desktop-devel mailing list. Support of proprietary protocols and closed standards is part of the world we live in, but all applications that support closed protocols should also support open equivalents where those exist, and should default to those if at all possible while still serving their intended purpose. That states free OR open. Given the context I guess open means open source as defined here: http://www.opensource.org/ (fair enough?) Cheers, Philip ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME Speaker Guidelines
On Fri, 2010-06-25 at 08:08 -0700, Stone Mirror wrote: Within the past two weeks, a male attendee sexually assaulted a couple of women at a Linux conference. Perhaps he believed that they were EMACS virgins and he was exercising his holy duty. And the Open Source heresy founding father, ESR, is a self-professed gun nut. Should we be mentioning ESR and Open Source movement every time the gun violence is in the news? - S ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Some notes on GNOME Shell
On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 11:31 +0100, Emmanuele Bassi wrote: On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 11:57 +0200, Patryk Zawadzki wrote: On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 2:11 AM, Owen Taylor otay...@redhat.com wrote: The secret master plan Boy do I wish I had a secret master plan tucked in a drawer somewhere! It would be really useful To the extent we have a master plan, it's in two documents that everybody has seen: http://www.gnome.org/~mccann/shell/design/GNOME_Shell-20091114.pdf http://live.gnome.org/GnomeShell/RoadmapTwoThirtyOne I think the community would love to see some more why behind the how :) For example I'd like to know why shell reinvents the graphical toolkit and comes with a (hardcoded?) theme which in turn makes it look out of place. Or why JS and not LUA or Python. I'm sure there was some evaluation behind these decisions but I'm not even sure where to dig. how about starting from the wiki page of the project? there's a lot of information, rationales and links to discussions. but, ultimately: it's a choice from the maintainers and I expect people accept decisions from the maintainers of a project because - well, they are the ones doing the damned work. I second Patryk's observation that it is not easy to fish info from the discussion archives. There should be some easy to find FAQ for developers that are curious about why, not just how and what It's details like this that make the project look more like OpenOffice than a GNOME app (here's the resulting code versus here are the plans and the rationale, please discuss). what's fundamental is that not everything should be open to discussion. ... I wouldn't assume people started questioning every single decision taken 12 months ago (or even farther back) because that's an incredible amount of what the damn kids today call stop energy - and in general it's not even worth following up to every crank that sends an email saying you should have used LUA!!11!1 JS suckzZzZzZ. ... + the GNOME Shell design and development process, as somebody that looks at it (slightly) from the outside, and since its inception, has been nothing *but* open. it's your classic open source meritocratic project, with two benevolent dictators that ultimately make the calls on technology and design. there's *nothing* new. they happen to be RedHat employee just because they started the project; I sense a suspicion from the outsiders (not RedHat employees) that project is not just manned by the RedHat employees, but controlled by the company. When design/architecture decisions are made within the company in most of the cases you get, at best, monstrosities like an OpenOffice. GIO has been written by a RedHat employee and yet I don't see masses in revolt because the community didn't have a greater deal of control on it. hell, half our current platform has been written by RH employees and everyone seems to be using it, contributing to it and improving it. ciao, Emmanuele. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Some notes on GNOME Shell
On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 20:45 -0700, Sandy Armstrong wrote: On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 4:23 PM, Sergey Panov si...@sipan.org wrote: I sense a suspicion from the outsiders (not RedHat employees) that project is not just manned by the RedHat employees, but controlled by the company It's controlled by the people doing the work, like any other project. What does it mean to be controlled by the company? It sounds a bit far-fetched. I was not speaking for myself, I still hope RedHat is an unusual company. But I can see how people can project their own experiences in the corporate environment on inner workings of RedHat. In other companies, the lead engineers are interacting with FOSS communities directly, but the dark cardinals(aka managers) control development behind the scene. When design/architecture decisions are made within the company in most of the cases you get, at best, monstrosities like an OpenOffice. The differences between gnome-shell's development and that of OpenOffice are so staggeringly different that I'm not sure how to respond to such a statement. You did not have to respond - it was not a statement. One of the candidates proposed a company-agnostic open venue to evaluate/discuss strategic design/architecture decision. I was trying to explain why it might be important. I really don't see how any of the critical responses in this thread are not already answered by Owen's original post. I am not sure what do you mean by the critical responses in this thread and I do not care much about that particular discussion (I guess I belong to the minority which views things like Gnome Shell or Zeitgeist as an icing on a cake, a cake with a serious problems I care about). - S. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Private Foundation-List Petition for referendum
I am one of those old farts on foundation list (first e-mail in my gfnd folder is from Sep 19 2000). I left foundation because I thought I was not contributing (I did some i18n work, while I had free time). I was following the recent controversy closely. I am with Dave Neary on a subject of that crazy idea to split from GNU. Sergey Panov = Politics aside, what was Lefty(Open source advocate for ACCESS Co., Ltd.) and Philip Van Hoof (self-appointed propitiatory software advocate) contribution to GNOME in the last year? Are those two still members of the foundation? On Mon, 2009-12-14 at 20:49 -0500, Behdad Esfahbod wrote: [/me removes board hat] Hi everyone, I like to ask for your support in my petition for referendum to make foundation-list archives private and membership limited to actual Foundation members. If we make that change we would be able to discuss matters freely without making lots of news that more often than not are harmful to our image to the world in general. Please sign here: http://live.gnome.org/PrivateFoundationListPetition We would need 35 to 40 signatures to put this to vote. Cheers, behdad ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Private Foundation-List Petition for referendum
On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 01:56 -0500, Behdad Esfahbod wrote: As per Code of Conduct, please assume people mean well. Which both Lefty and Philip do. Sorry, if I managed to brake some CoC. I have no idea what you mean by mean well, but their attack on RMS was quite tasteless. Philip is a major developer of many current and emerging GNOME technologies. Which technologies? TinyMail? Lefty represents ACCESS in the Advisory board and is a regular contributor to the adboard meetings as well as being a regular at GUADEC and other GNOME conferences. Nothing personal, but I never trusted those corporate Open Source Advocates ... . Besides, Lefty does not work for ACCESS Inc. anymore -- he is a director of the Open Source Technologies http://www.blogger.com/profile/08971976622291862537. FWIW, just being a regular at GUADEC is enough contribution to apply for Foundation membership. We have that in our rules and we have accepted members just passing that criteria. I did not know the threshold was dropped that low. -Sergey Panov ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
