Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 10th Mar 2011 12:59 UTC
Talk, Rumors, X Versus Y If you were, you know, living your lives, you've probably missed it, but old fires are burning brightly once again: there's somewhat of a falling-out going on between KDE and GNOME, with Canonical siding squarely with... KDE. The issue seems to revolve around GNOME's lack of collaboration, as explained by KDE's Aaron Seigo.
Thread beginning with comment 465671
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Copyright Assignment
by ruinevil on Thu 10th Mar 2011 20:41 UTC
ruinevil
Member since:
2009-01-08

It seems that all work on AppIndicator would have the copyright assigned to Canonical, whereas GNOME, being a GNU project, wants GNU to have the copyright.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Copyright Assignment
by jamboarder on Thu 10th Mar 2011 21:35 in reply to "Copyright Assignment"
jamboarder Member since:
2009-02-16

Not quite right. libappindicator is a library that is one implementation (Canonical/Unity) of the proposed spec. Apps that use the library would no more be required to assign copyright that any other library.

More importantly GNOME didn't need to accept libappindicator to implement the spec. They could have rejected libappindicator on copyright assignment or whatever grounds - as they have - and still implemented the spec on their own in GNOME shell. They didn't. They implemented their own app/systray mechanism in GNOME Shell while effectively ignoring the fact that on fd.o it was known that folks were trying to implement a cross-desktop systray/notification spec. Now apps built to use the GNOME Shell systray/notification area may not work with KDE's Plasma systray/notification area. And guess which party will probably adjust in the name of practicality? KDE. This is not the only instance of this kind of behavior and I can understand why KDE folks tire of it. I'm sure the KDE community and Canonical has areas for improvement as well. But, to Aaron's ultimate point, we can't keep pretending everything's peaches and sunshine when there is real damage occurring. As a FOSS community, we can do better than this...

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Copyright Assignment
by somebody on Fri 11th Mar 2011 01:33 in reply to "RE: Copyright Assignment"
somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

so... basically... they are doomed because they didn't accept the spec implementation based on licensing they couldn't agree with? or are they doomed because they didn't put work into creating spec implementation which they don't need?

ffs, isn't FOSS exactly about having choice? in your words, they haven't got one. wtf is wrong with the fact you deny developer right to his choice?

if you haven't noticed, g-s was delayed few times now, meaning they have no time to work on spare work they don't really need in order to put g-s out. some features even got cut out for 3.2. and still you demand work not needed to be done. hey, i also have some lawn that needs mowing. so, any gnome developer reading this, after you finish that spec implementation, contact me for further instructions

Reply Parent Score: -1

RE: Copyright Assignment
by Delgarde on Thu 10th Mar 2011 21:58 in reply to "Copyright Assignment"
Delgarde Member since:
2008-08-19

It seems that all work on AppIndicator would have the copyright assigned to Canonical, whereas GNOME, being a GNU project, wants GNU to have the copyright.


No such thing - GNOME is only loosely associated with GNU (despite the name), and certainly doesn't require or even encourage copyright assignment to GNU (or anyone else).

Reply Parent Score: 4