[CLOSED] [Request] Kingsoft Office

Sly Dok
Posts: 36
Joined: 27 Jun 2014 22:14
Location: Netherlands

[CLOSED] [Request] Kingsoft Office

Postby Sly Dok » 01 Jul 2014 21:22

I would like to suggest the addition of Kingsoft Office (a.k.a. WPS Office) to the community repository. It's an office suite that is highly compatible with MS Office file formats, and it's available as freeware for Linux, Windows, iOS and Android.

http://www.wps.com/linux/

http://wps-community.org/

http://wps-community.org/download.html

User avatar
Arjen Balfoort
Site Admin
Posts: 9473
Joined: 26 Jan 2013 19:36
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Re: [Request] Kingsoft Office

Postby Arjen Balfoort » 02 Jul 2014 02:17

Does it also support Visual Basic on Linux?
Most Excel "applications" I had to work with had a lot of VB coding behind it, and as far as I know, you can't run that in Linux :?


SolydXK needs you!
Development | Testing | Translations

Sly Dok
Posts: 36
Joined: 27 Jun 2014 22:14
Location: Netherlands

Re: [Request] Kingsoft Office

Postby Sly Dok » 02 Jul 2014 02:50

I'm not an expert on Excel, I'm afraid. But I'm running Kingsoft Office on my SolydK system, and it does contain a spreadsheet application, which seems to run fine. Are you saying this is probably just a very basic, crippled Excel clone?

kurotsugi
Posts: 2270
Joined: 09 Jan 2014 00:17

Re: [Request] Kingsoft Office

Postby kurotsugi » 02 Jul 2014 05:36

AFAIK the linux version is still on alpha version and lack support from the devs. I'm not sure if it can replace the functionality of LO. WPS also a propietary software we can't build it for debian testing.

Sly Dok
Posts: 36
Joined: 27 Jun 2014 22:14
Location: Netherlands

Re: [Request] Kingsoft Office

Postby Sly Dok » 02 Jul 2014 09:40

kurotsugi wrote:I'm not sure if it can replace the functionality of LO.
Surely, there are differences. But I, for one, prefer it over Libre Office, because with Kingsoft Office I can open, edit and save Word, Excel and PowerPoint files without having to worry about layout issues, and because the Windows version of Libre Office is incredibly slow.

kurotsugi
Posts: 2270
Joined: 09 Jan 2014 00:17

Re: [Request] Kingsoft Office

Postby kurotsugi » 02 Jul 2014 14:54

the alpha version have lot's of bug. please read our guidelines, especially point two
Community Packaging Guidelines

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
the Community Packages Repo primary goal is to make available to the Community applications that are not in the standard Debian Testing archive; it should not be used to backport newer versions already available (a)

ONE
In the OP Proposition Topic, the future Maintainer should respect the following schema

upstream url
the debs (both archs)
clear instructions to replicate the build
the compiling logs


TWO
The proposed packages have to build with no external packages/libraries in a vanilla SolydXK Production install fully updated and have to install in the same conditions (b)

THREE
We really don't want 2 or 3 packagers presenting the same package :) so:
- the first that accepts the challenge in the Requests area has one week to present a working installable deb; the same time frame applies to the Proposals area.
- after that period others can pick up the request and the same "protection" applies.
- once the package is approved its maintenance is given to the original packager, unless:

(s)he renounces
the package is outdated (c)

in which situations the package is again free.

FOUR
A package might be rejected based on its bugs or low quality.

FIVE
If a package proves its usefulness it could be added to the official solydXK repo.

SIX
These rules can be adapted anytime (d)

====
NOTES
(a)- in special situations (unmaintained package upstream, ancient version on the archives) and in a case by case decision exceptions could be contemplated.

(b)- "external packages/libraries" from the available through the standard repos.

(c)- we will consider here the second stable release upstream to the available package in the community repo as the "redflag"

(d)- in many ways this is a work-in-progress (and so are the rules)
WPS is a propietary software thus no one here could build this package. I'm also not sure about the license issue. it certainly not an open source project. we might not permitted to put this software into our repo.

Sly Dok
Posts: 36
Joined: 27 Jun 2014 22:14
Location: Netherlands

Re: [Request] Kingsoft Office

Postby Sly Dok » 02 Jul 2014 20:14

kurotsugi wrote:the alpha version have lot's of bug. please read our guidelines, especially point two
TWO
The proposed packages have to build with no external packages/libraries in a vanilla SolydXK Production install fully updated and have to install in the same conditions
Point two doesn't say anything about alpha software. Why did you refer to this section of the guidelines? :?

By the way: I have been using Kingsoft Office for Linux for quite a while now, and I have never had any issues with it. :D

Sly Dok
Posts: 36
Joined: 27 Jun 2014 22:14
Location: Netherlands

Re: [Request] Kingsoft Office

Postby Sly Dok » 02 Jul 2014 23:40

kurotsugi wrote:WPS is a propietary software thus no one here could build this package. I'm also not sure about the license issue. it certainly not an open source project. we might not permitted to put this software into our repo.
At http://wps-community.org/distribution.md I found the answer to that:
In order to distribute Kingsoft Office you need to agree the LICENSE AGREEMENT OF KINGSOFT OFFICE FOR LINUX COMMUNITY, click here for details.
According the license, you have to send an email to inform us you are distributing this product.
We may list here whom distributed.
Now feel free to distribute your own package under the license.

kurotsugi
Posts: 2270
Joined: 09 Jan 2014 00:17

Re: [Request] Kingsoft Office

Postby kurotsugi » 03 Jul 2014 09:09

it seems that you didn't read the whole guidelines. I stressed on point two because that's the most important part regarding WPS. simply no one except WPS devs can build WPS since it's not an open source project. we can't build WPS if we don't have the source code. have you ever seen WPS's source code? definetely not. the alpha version and the bugs is related to point four
FOUR
A package might be rejected based on its bugs or low quality.

Sly Dok
Posts: 36
Joined: 27 Jun 2014 22:14
Location: Netherlands

Re: [Request] Kingsoft Office

Postby Sly Dok » 03 Jul 2014 10:14

kurotsugi wrote:it seems that you didn't read the whole guidelines. I stressed on point two because that's the most important part regarding WPS.
I see. I should have read more carefully.
kurotsugi wrote:no one except WPS devs can build WPS[/b] since it's not an open source project. we can't build WPS if we don't have the source code.
Why the need to rebuild from source? For security reasons?

I thought that the SolydXK developers didn't reject redistribution of closed source software necessarily. Why would redistributing Kingsoft Office be a problem, whereas a variety of proprietary drivers are readily available in the repositories?

User avatar
Arjen Balfoort
Site Admin
Posts: 9473
Joined: 26 Jan 2013 19:36
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Re: [Request] Kingsoft Office

Postby Arjen Balfoort » 03 Jul 2014 10:58

Sly Dok wrote:I thought that the SolydXK developers didn't reject redistribution of closed source software necessarily. Why would redistributing Kingsoft Office be a problem, whereas a variety of proprietary drivers are readily available in the repositories?
You are right: we wouldn't mind re-distributing closed source software. However, it cannot become a part of the default install (not in the ISOs), the community must see the value of such an addition for the SolydXK Home Editions, and the licence agreement for redistribution must not have any negative influence on SolydXK.

As for this Office Suite, it seems that the community is lacking interest, I'm afraid.


SolydXK needs you!
Development | Testing | Translations

User avatar
zerozero
Posts: 5373
Joined: 10 Feb 2013 23:37
Location: West Midlands, England
Contact:

Re: [Request] Kingsoft Office

Postby zerozero » 03 Jul 2014 11:11

have you read the http://wps-community.org/license.md EULA carefully?
it's as close as it gets!

i, for one, i'm not interested in repackaging this software for the community repos (not only because i don't and will not use it - but that didn't stop me from offering other app that i don't use either - but mainly because i don't work with EULA's like that one)
bliss of ignorance

Sly Dok
Posts: 36
Joined: 27 Jun 2014 22:14
Location: Netherlands

Re: [Request] Kingsoft Office

Postby Sly Dok » 03 Jul 2014 13:17

Well, I felt that adding Kingsoft Office to the community repository could benefit SolydXK's overall usability, and that there might be other users who would be happy with it's addition. But as it turns out, there's little interest in it, and what's more, the licence agreement for Kingsoft Office makes it unsuitable for redistribution through the SolydXK repositories.

Fair enough; I will close this topic, then.

kurotsugi
Posts: 2270
Joined: 09 Jan 2014 00:17

Re: [CLOSED] [Request] Kingsoft Office

Postby kurotsugi » 03 Jul 2014 17:01

Why the need to rebuild from source? For security reasons?
yup. and for a compatibility reason too. we need to make sure that the software is stable and compatible with our system.
I thought that the SolydXK developers didn't reject redistribution of closed source software necessarily. Why would redistributing Kingsoft Office be a problem, whereas a variety of proprietary drivers are readily available in the repositories?
first of all, driver and programs are two different things. driver is essential but a program isn't. drivers also didn't have restricted license. on several case the driver package in our repo didn't contain the driver. it only contain certain script to download the binary files from the official source then install it to our system.


Return to “Community Packages Requests”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests