[kde-community] Request to join the Kde incubator for GCompris

[Bruno Coudoin]

Le 20/02/2014 09:37, Martin Gräßlin a écrit :
> On Thursday 20 February 2014 09:03:04 Bruno Coudoin wrote:
>> Le 19/02/2014 21:24, David Edmundson a écrit :
>>> What I see as a problem is that this has an implicit attached request
>>> to our current KDE Windows releasing team saying they shouldn't
>>> package and release GCompris.
>>>
>>> It would be unfair on Bruno for our KDE Windows team to do so. Legally
>>> they absolutely can, but it would still be more than a little bit
>>> rude. It's also equally unfair on our KDE Windows team to ever prevent
>>> them from doing so.
>>>
>>> I think it does open up some very interesting questions, not just here
>>> but for other cases where our Android/iOS porting becomes popular on
>>> how to do this in a manner that is fair to everyone. Money can easily
>>> cause a lot of tension and arguments.
>>>
>>> I'd like a discussion on it and maybe some guidelines.
>> Hi,
>>
>> Yes I confirm that this is an important question and we must think about
>> it before going further.
>>
>> Distributing 2 different binary versions of GCompris, one on
>> gcompris.net with an activation code and one on kde.org without would be
>> unfair and confusing for the users. Like you mention it would be much
>> more confusing on Android/iOS.
>>
>> Even if you take out the activation issue, it is very confusing to have
>> different application with the same name being build and distributed by
>> several organization. It is the rule on GNU/Linux and we are used to
>> work that way but on the other platforms it is not practical.
> But you cannot prevent it. If for example I don't like that you distribute it
> with an activation code I can take the source and distribute it without the
> activation code.
Hi,

It is true and this is not specific to free software or to GCompris. The 
software industry at large learned to live with people distributing 
unauthorized version. The difference with free software is that it is 
legal to do so. What happens in this case is that the original author 
request the unauthorized distributor to change the name of the software. 
It is what happened with RedHat versus CentOS or Firefox versus Iceweasel.

In our case the situation is different because it would be legitimate to 
have a build on gcompris.net and one on kde.org thus both parties have 
to define the rules.
>
> Given that I don't think it really matters at the moment. You have to be
> prepared that others will provide binaries (whether it's friendly (e.g. KDE)
> or unfriendly (someone just going for the money)).
I am prepared to that and this issue is already present for the Gtk+ 
version. I have been somewhat protected by the complexity of doing a 
build on Windows and MacOSX.

>   Maybe this could be split
> of into a new thread to brainstorm ideas around that and how to fairly
> distribute the income as that can raise conflicts.
>
>
I am open do discussion on this matter.

Bruno.