(no title)
aninteger | 1 year ago
Certainly that's one interpretation. The other interpretation is exactly what is said and no more. Where did this "imposter" accusation come from?
aninteger | 1 year ago
Certainly that's one interpretation. The other interpretation is exactly what is said and no more. Where did this "imposter" accusation come from?
ImPostingOnHN|1 year ago
Viewed in this context, the second point sounds weird: it was never rebranded, the fork was called TDE from the beginning, and the reason it can't (shouldn't) call itself KDE is because it isn't. What the KDE leadership calls KDE is KDE.
bmacho|1 year ago
They also kinda imply that they would use the KDE name, if they were allowed to, but someone else owns the rights for it. ("Why don't you do this very natural thing?" "I am not allowed to.")
They indeed don't claim or imply that the KDE Foundation is an "imposter". They also don't say anything about whether the KDE Foundation is also a continuation of the same project.
unknown|1 year ago
[deleted]