On Monday 18 June 2001 08:45 pm, mosfet wrote: > I'm back on mosfet.org and wrote out a quick statement about recent > events concerning my code and KDE CVS. Hopefully this will help clear up > any misconceptions, at least from my point of view. You can check it out > at: > > http://www.mosfet.org I would like to react to this by making some general marks first and then some remarks with respect to Daniel in particular. 1) Being part of KDE means that you have to work together with others. Such cooperation brings along advantages but it also brings along responsibilities. Some of those advantages are: your code ends up on all distro's, people might fix your bugs, you get free translations and documentation, you get tons of bugreports. On the other side there are disadvantages and responsibilities: you will have to communicate with other developers about your work, other people might make changes to your code, you will have to respect release freezes, you get tons of bugreports and people actually expect that you fix them as well (what are they smoking?), people expect you to maintain your code. You can't chose for the advantages and ignore the responsibilities that come with it, it's a complete package, it's both or nothing. 2) In general it should be the author of a piece of software that chooses to put his application in CVS. We usualy don't put software in KDE CVS unless the author wishes to do so. The other way around, if the author prefers to work on his application outside CVS then that's his right as well. Unless there is a split in the actual group of people working on the application it makes no sense to fork the development of an application because of that. BUT... by putting your code under and open source license and putting it in KDE CVS you give the world at large, as well as KDE in particular, the irrevocable right to use your code. And KDE will use that right at its discretion to protect the interests of KDE, even if that goes against the wishes of the author at that point in time. To relate the above to the recent actions by Daniel (aka 'mosfet'). I don't think that Daniel accepts the responsibilities that come with having code in CVS and therefor I believe that it is better that from now on Daniel will develop his code outside KDE CVS. In that light I have asked Daniel to remove Pixie from CVS. Pixie is cleary primarily developed by Daniel and there is no point in keeping a version of it in KDE CVS when all further development will be done by Daniel outside KDE CVS. I haven't asked Daniel to remove any of its other code because this code is clearly an integral part of KDE. Removing it would harm the interest of KDE and its users. Removing such code can not be allowed. As a personal note to Daniel: We clearly have different opinions on a lot of issues and I find your recent behaviour unacceptable but that doesn't mean I hold any grudges to you. I am very thankfull for the effort that you have put into KDE and I appreciate the work that you have done on the styles including your latest liquid style. I have criticized the latter for lack of artistic innovation but that doesn't mean that you haven't done a great job implementing it. I also recognize that many great painters have started by copying (t.i. repainting) the work of others in order to surpass it later. In that respect I'm very hopefull for the future. I hope that by working outside the boundaries of KDE CVS you will be better able to follow your artistic inspiritation without me shouting at you for things like release freezes. I sincerily think that that is a better solution for all parties involved. I wish you success with your coding and wish you all the best. Waldo Bastian This message is Copyright 2001 by Waldo Bastian. All rights reserved. This message may be freely copied and redestributed in whole alone. The opinions expressed in this message are those of Waldo Bastian and are not necasserily shared by either SuSE Inc. or other KDE developers. >> Visit http://master.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-devel#unsub to unsubscribe <<