Re: Questions

[Ali Akcaagac <aliakc web de>]

Andrew Sobola wrote:
> But if you're making a distribution that misses out some of the
> software that the release team (and therefore, indirectly, the
> foundation) has said _is_ GNOME, you're not distributing GNOME.

Sorry but you are totally redefining the Licensing model that GNOME was
put under and with this you are cutting my freedom to do with the
software what I want. The philosophy of free software describes that the
user who uses free software which was put under the GNU/GPL or GNU/LGPL
to do whatever he/she wants with it as long as it is going conform with
the license. CVSGnome is entirely going conform with this licensing
model of using the GNOME components embedded in it's list. The
terminology GNOME is protected by the GNOME Foundation only to guarantee
that companies show up and abuse its name or claim ownership of it. I am
not abusing the name GNOME for commercial purposes or something. It's
simply a script not more not less.

> As I understand it, this is what CVSGnome used to do. And when
> that was the case, it was a very good argument for not including
> it in the release notes that tell you how to get GNOME.

Don't forget that even JHBuild when it was included didn't contained all
the modules it has been expanded over the time thats true but it was
included that time without anyone complaining about it or rejecting it.
Even V-B-S was mentioned on developer.gnome.org for years while the list
is also far from complete and yet nobody has complained.

>From your point of view CVSGnome is just a 'modified' GNOME version but
why is Ximian Desktop included in the list ? It doesn't offer a full
GNOME in the way you understand it since it has a lot of modifications
in it as the wording 'modified' says on it's title and yet nobody
complained. But for CVSGnome people are making a lot of noise. No it's
bad, no it's not conform, sorry it misses the documentations (jesus
everyone makes mistakes) and thats reason enough to not include it. It
would be the same like excluding Nautilus just for missing one icon that
Jimmac or Tigert has spent hours into creating. Yet nobody complains.
Even Red Hat and SUN are releasing their Desktop (going license conform)
and use the word GNOME in their presentation and yet nobody complains
that it's probably missing some stuff or is highly modified.

This is simply not fair. You people know that I have been asking for
inclusion many times and the argumentation that someone made that
'nobody has had time to do this' is wrong. It wasn't done because of
purpose. You see my official and fair proposal for rotation to the
Foundation list makes sense because we need to make a final cut under
such a behave. We need to give people a chance.

I actually didn't plan to make more noise about it since I am quite sure
it's clear what I meant. More than clear but please understand that I do
stand for my work and defend it.

greetings,

Ali Akcaagac