[Accessibility] Re: Q

[Aaron J. Seigo]

On Monday 08 August 2005 12:18, George Kraft wrote:
> > Thanks to all of you for explaining the LSB's view on it. I hope you can
> > also understand why the current approach of the LSB is not acceptable for
> > KDE.
>
> The LSB refuses to standardize on the Qt toolkit which would require
> some to enter into a contractual agreement to use the runtime.  The QPL
> license does not meet the LSB's acceptance criteria.

i just wish the LSB would actually get involved with documenting the 
real-world ABIs so that vendors can coordinate and give ISVs something 
dependable to work on rather than trying to dictate to developers what to 
use. and yes, that is exactly what it is doing.

if the LSB were a bit more pragmatic, there'd be nothing standing in the way 
of standardizing all sorts of useful ABIs, like Oracle's database client 
interface or Lotus Notes' APIs on linux or ... instead we have a "zero 
monetary cost" approach that i find somewhat incomprehensible. it's not like 
someone has to use every single thing in the LSB, but it certainly is more 
difficult to rely on things that aren't in the LSB should the LSB ever 
achieve it's long term goals.

we could accomplish so much more with an LSB, or LSB-like organization, that 
had a more practical (to its audience) methodology.

-- 
Aaron J. Seigo
GPG Fingerprint: 8B8B 2209 0C6F 7C47 B1EA  EE75 D6B7 2EB1 A7F1 DB43
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/accessibility/attachments/20050808/b88562c1/attachment.pgp