Bill.Haneman at Sun.COM
Thu Aug 4 05:47:05 PDT 2005
Olaf Schmidt wrote:...
>Of course you are right that this should be discussed on the lsb-desktop
>working group list, and I am planning to subscribe to that list and find out
>whether these are mischaracterisations or whether the LSB is indeed heading
>for a Gnome-only future.
I agree that this is a concern and that clarification is needed.
However I don't think any of the proposals so far would infer a "Gnome
only future"; as George said, Qt inclusion appears only to be "blocked"
which is quite different from excluded.
>The reason I have brought this up here is that this topic will have a strong
>influence on the success of our work. If the LSB decides to exclude
>Qt/KDE-based distributions and ISVs from their focus, then this will destroy
>the credibility of the FSG for the excluded people.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding the implications, but it seems to me that
including gtk+ in the LSB standard, without including Qt as well, would
not exclude KDE-based distros at all; it would only require that
compliant distros ship the Gnome libraries _as well_. Similarly if Qt
were to be included in the LSB desktop standard in the future, I think
the implication is that distros would be required to ship Qt _as well
As long as the lsb-desktop group can explain the rationale behind the
current situation with regard to licensing, we can avoid the appearance
>This means that this working group would need to consider whether the FSG will
>still be the right parent organisation for a working group focused on
More information about the Accessibility