[arch-dev-public] Kingsoft Office License

Lukas Jirkovsky l.jirkovsky at gmail.com
Tue Apr 1 08:14:35 EDT 2014

On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 6:01 AM, Felix Yan <felixonmars at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> I've got an updated license from Kingsoft, most of the problems should have
> been addressed (except for the PRC export laws problem, which doesn't seem to
> be avoidable, but should not be a problem if I read the laws correctly...)
> I've updated the package in AUR to use their general-purpose tarball (.tar.xz
> file). And as for libpng12, they would provide it into the tarball if we were
> going to rip it out from [community] and [multilib], so the package is always
> self-contained and won't introduce any new dependency.
> Link to the updated version: https://paste.xinu.at/cDX/
> Disclaimer: I'm not working for Kingsoft in any form, or getting anything from
> them as return for the inclusion. The idea to add the office suite to our
> repos was suggested by someone else, and I like the idea because it fills in
> the blank for good MSO compatibility and good Chinese support.
> For reference only: http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/10-things/10-reasons-why-kingsoft-office-is-better-than-the-competition/
> (I don't mean that LibreOffice is bad, both the two tools can have their job
> done nicely. I don't want to start a war =P)
> At the end, I'll respect your decision if you still think this idea not
> acceptable. I'm sorry for taking up so much time of yours.
> Regards,
> Felix Yan

It looks quite OK to me, so I'm supporting this. They have quite good
support for the proprietary formats. Bonus points for that they are
willing to communicate and fix the problems, which isn't that common
with proprietary software.

More information about the arch-dev-public mailing list