[RFC] Merging LightDM into KDE Workspaces (forwarded from plasma-devel)

[Harald Sitter]

On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 12:27 PM, David Edmundson
<david at davidedmundson.co.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:53 PM, Matthias Klumpp <matthias at tenstral.net> wrote:
>> 2012/8/22 Albert Astals Cid <aacid at kde.org>:
>>> El Dimecres, 22 d'agost de 2012, a les 13:58:57, David Edmundson va escriure:
>>>> As you're all probably aware I've been working on a new login manager
>>>> for KDE [1]. Currently known as LightDM-KDE, named as it is based on
>>>> the display manager backend LightDM [2].
>>>
>>> How's the upstream of ligthdm? Have you worked with them? Do you feel it's an
>>> upstream open to our needs?
>> Lightdm is NOT a Canonical project, it is developed by Robert Ancell
>> and as far as I know there's no CLA to sign. (I haven't contributed to
>> the project yet) From the very few moments I spoke to Robert I'd say
>> working with him is really nice and there won't be problems.
>> Regarding the Canonical-CLA-issue: I also had my bad experiences with
>> this, so please, please, never do anything like this in KDE (again)!
>> But for LightDM I have no objections, +1 from me for this!
>
> Anything that I'm proposing putting into KDE workspaces is the code in
> KDE playground, it has _nothing_ to do with Canonical or upstream
> LightDM, no CLAs, our git servers, our bugtracker, completely ours.
> Has been since the start, always will be. This is the KCM and all the
> front end code and the only part you'd ever really want to work on.
> There's absolutely no
>
> I think the backend, LightDM, is now a Canonical project. It was
> started by an employee in his free time to experiment whilst he
> maintained GDM, and it became his day job. However that doesn't make
> it bad, it's only the CLA that has a potential to be an issue.
>
> It is currently _NOT_ listed in the list of CLA covered projects
> http://www.canonical.com/contributors.
>
> Assuming they made it covered, it's worth noting the Canonical CLA has
> changed _significantly_ since those high profile "comments" that I
> think you're referring to were made. Trolltech also have had a CLA,
> and to me they seem pretty similar (though I'm not a lawyer). Even if
> it was covered, this only puts it on par with libzeitgeist which is
> already being utilized in KDE. In the absolutely worst case ever we
> would fork the backend which remains LGPL and ship that.

FWIW, last I talked to Robert about Canonical's involvement (which I
believe was at UDS in May last year) only the greeters were to be
covered by the CLA.

HS