[Accessibility] Q

[Bill Haneman]

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_ gtk+. 

As long as the lsb-desktop group can explain the rationale behind the 
current situation with regard to licensing, we can avoid the appearance 
of favoritism.

Bill

>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 
>multiple toolkits.
>
>Olaf
>