On Wednesday 19. February 2014 12.58.57 Agustin benito bethencourt wrote:
I must confess though that I am worry about the association between:
* proprietary platforms = commercial
* free platforms = non commercial
that might be implied from this model.
But the business models is a
On Wednesday 19. February 2014 21.24.22 David Edmundson wrote:
The open source as well as the free-software movements are about freedom,
and I believe KDE supports that as well.
The beliefs of freedom are not at all hurt by someone taking that FLOSS
and
packaging it for a fee. There is
KDE
benefit from copying from kubuntu?
The kubuntu docs wiki seems to me to be quite elegant. A list of packages
in the distro and links to the deeper information of the various upstreams.
For instance the office section links to the libreoffice site as well as the
callgra site.
--
Thomas
, but the
asset and deliverable is typically used for the png you export.
So I'm assuming we want the source-materials, and in that case those names
may not be the best.
What about calling them; source materials. Or Product source materials?
Just thinking out loud...
--
Thomas Zander
On Monday 11 November 2013 07.31.15 Eike Hein wrote:
- * Software assets access model
-* Direct write access to the software assets is granted only to KDE
contributor accounts
-* Direct write access to the software assets is granted to all KDE
contributor accounts
+ *
