On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 12:27 PM, David Edmundson <da...@davidedmundson.co.uk> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:53 PM, Matthias Klumpp <matth...@tenstral.net> > wrote: >> 2012/8/22 Albert Astals Cid <aa...@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