[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde
Subject:    Re: QT license
From:       Matt Stocum <mstocum () op ! net>
Date:       1997-05-26 12:15:04
[Download RAW message or body]

On Mon, 26 May 1997, Kai Wetzel wrote:

> Martin Konold wrote:
> [...]
> > Please discuss licensing issues ONLY on
> > kde-license@fiwi02.wiwi.uni-tuebingen.de
> 
> Has it occured to you how childish this response is ?

Childish? He's just telling the people that they are talking on the wrong
list.  Would it be childish if someone in this list were talking about how
great netscape was and someone told them they were in the wrong list?

> 
> The KDE Desktop Environment has picked the Qt
> widget set/application framework to build a
> consistent Free Software Unix/X desktop.
> 
> There have been, continue to be and will be commnents
> like "rewrite Qt", "why not Gtk ?", etc.
> Instead of making fun of these people by directing
> them to a nonsense mailing list in front of the
> whole group, it would be more appropriate to:

A "nonsense mailing list", how is kde-license nonsence?  If I remember
correctly it is the exact place these issues should be discussed, infact I
think the description specifically mentions the "qt issue".

> 
> 1. Make the issue clear on the web pages.
>    Say explicitely that the KDE has made the decision
>    to pick Qt, and that it will not discuss this
>    topic any further.
>    (It may be clear enogh already, make sure it's clear
>     to those who have to read it twice, though ;)

First off I think it's common sense that it's not going to change.  Can
you immagine how many hours of work it would take to switch over to a
different widget set now?  The thought scares me.

> 2. If there are people who still adress this issue
>    on the mailing list, because they've skipped the
>    significant info on the web-pages and entered
>    the mailing list right away, write to these people
>    _privately_ and point out the web-pages where
>    the relavant KDE decision is summerized.

Why private?  They wrote a public message, they should be expecting a
public response.  Also, by addressing the issue publically it will inform
others who would have made the same mistake about the correct location for
the discussion.

> 3. Eliminate "kde-license@fiwi02.wiwi.uni-tuebingen.de".
>    This has only been set up in order to emberras and
>    make fun of people, not to help clearing out any
>    real issues.

How is it "set up in order to emberras and make fun of people".  AFAIK it
was setup to discuss licensing issue, which the original post was.

>    _If_ you think treating people with disrespect
>    is a good idea, continue to do so, but do it _explicitely_
>    by telling them: "Licensing issues will be resolved by
>    directing mails such as yours to /dev/null directly".
> 

Maybe I'm the only one who sees this but I think you are the only one
treating anyone with disrespect.  Your quote is plain rude, the other
reply is exactly what I would expect, if you write to the wrong list
someone will inform you about this and give you the correct location.

> As a general rule, I think adressing people with respect is a
> good idea, though.  This includes long-term contributors who
> adress new people who just don't know.  This is just my opinion,
> of course, feel free to disagree.
> 
> Best regards,
> kai
> 
> 
> 

Read the above statement yourself.

-matt

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]