Re: On the reappointment of Richard Stallman as a director of the FSF
El dimecres, 31 de març de 2021, a les 22:03:09 CEST, Ingo Klöcker va escriure: > On Mittwoch, 31. März 2021 21:50:14 CEST Albert Astals Cid wrote: > > El dijous, 25 de març de 2021, a les 5:33:29 CEST, Alexander Potashev va > escriure: > > > It would be nice to clarify whose opinions this linked message represents. > > > If this is something that the KDE e.V. Board voted for, then probably a > > > signature "KDE e.V. Board of Directors" on the bottom of the page would > > > make sense. > > > > It's in ev.kde.org, who do you think the opinions this linked message > > represents? > > > > Speedy Gonzales? > > No, but it could be the KDE e.V. as a whole (it's not certain it is), it > could > be the KDE e.V. Board of Directors (as far as I understood, it is), or it > could be some other group of KDE e.V. members. For me, the default assumption if something is in ev.kde.org and has no qualification is that the KDE e.V. is saying it. If it was "some other group of KDE e.V. members" then it would be signed as such. I feel that making a distinction between "KDE e.V. Board of Directors" and "KDE e.V." is artificial, the board of directors have been democratically elected to talk in name of KDE e.V. Cheers, Albert > > Regards, > Ingo >
Re: On the reappointment of Richard Stallman as a director of the FSF
On Mittwoch, 31. März 2021 21:50:14 CEST Albert Astals Cid wrote: > El dijous, 25 de març de 2021, a les 5:33:29 CEST, Alexander Potashev va escriure: > > It would be nice to clarify whose opinions this linked message represents. > > If this is something that the KDE e.V. Board voted for, then probably a > > signature "KDE e.V. Board of Directors" on the bottom of the page would > > make sense. > > It's in ev.kde.org, who do you think the opinions this linked message > represents? > > Speedy Gonzales? No, but it could be the KDE e.V. as a whole (it's not certain it is), it could be the KDE e.V. Board of Directors (as far as I understood, it is), or it could be some other group of KDE e.V. members. Regards, Ingo signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: On the reappointment of Richard Stallman as a director of the FSF
El dijous, 25 de març de 2021, a les 5:33:29 CEST, Alexander Potashev va escriure: > Thanks for the effort Aleix! > > It would be nice to clarify whose opinions this linked message represents. > If this is something that the KDE e.V. Board voted for, then probably a > signature "KDE e.V. Board of Directors" on the bottom of the page would > make sense. It's in ev.kde.org, who do you think the opinions this linked message represents? Speedy Gonzales? Cheers, Albert > > > Dear community, > > From the KDE e.V. we followed closely the discussions on the last few > > days regarding this recent decision within the Free Software > > Foundation's leadership. > > > > We have tried to sum up our thoughts in the following announcement > > with the hope to foster collectively the Free Software leadership we > > need. > > https://ev.kde.org/2021/03/24/on-the-reappointment-of-rms-fsf/ > > > > Looking forward to a more inclusive discussion that will shape the > > Free Software movement of tomorrow. > > > > Best regards, > > Aleix Pol with the KDE e.V. Board of Directors > > >
Re: Releasing a non-KF5 library under MIT License
On Mittwoch, 31. März 2021 01:52:02 CEST Alexander Potashev wrote: > On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 12:54 AM Luigi Toscano [...] > > 4. Source files that are part of a library with a public API which is part > > of the KDE Platform (kdelibs, kdepimlibs, kde-runtime and KDE Frameworks) > > must be licensed under: > > [... licenses, including: ...] > > > > * MIT: MIT license as listed below. > > > > [...] > > > > 5. Any other source files must be licensed under one of the terms listed > > under 4) or: > > [ other licenses] > > Makes sense. Thanks for pointing this out! > > (IOW the licensing policy "KDE Platform" is even tighter and for the > other projects, and this is great for me!) Hi, the idea behind this policy is to ensure that code can (somehow) easily be moved between KDE projects. Most permissive licenses are completely fine to achieve this goal as long as they are compatible with the (L)GPL versions that the majority of the code is licensed under. -- This is the case for MIT. Luckily, as Luigi pointed out, our policy already says that MIT is OK to be used :) Cheers, Andreas
