[arch-dev-public] Kingsoft Office License

Allan McRae allan at archlinux.org
Tue Mar 18 07:31:50 EDT 2014

On 18/03/14 18:34, Felix Yan wrote:
> Hi,
> I recently received a license from Kingsoft to redistribute the office 
> productivity suite "kingsoft-office", and I want your opinion about if it 
> looks good to us, or if any modifications have to be made.
> The product is an office suite written in C++ and Qt, including three 
> components: Writer, Spreadsheets and Presentation. From my own experience, it 
> has very good compatibility with Microsoft Office (much better than 
> LibreOffice, especially with newer formats like .docx files), and have 
> attracted 138 votes on AUR too [1].
> Within the past one year, I've been trying and pushing them for this license, 
> and it's finally here.
> One more thing that has to be noted is, as the native 64-bit version of 
> kingsoft-office has been (temporarily, I hope) removed from their development 
> cycle, we have to ship the 32-bit version in [multilib] for x86_64 systems. 
> Luckily this won't introduce more packages as all the lib32-* dependencies it 
> needs are already in [multilib].
> Below I'll paste the full text of the license. A .doc version 
> (the rich text version directly from Kingsoft) can be downloaded here: 
> https://paste.xinu.at/Mf5/
> [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/kingsoft-office

- Distributed as a deb file
- Requires libpng12 (why is that in [community]...)
- I don't trust licenses with multiple obvious typos
- Is linking at runtime "integrating" with other software
- Are dontations to Arch counted as us making a profit from having it in
our repos?
- The terms indicate we are legally responsible to stop (e.g.) Manjaro
redistributing this.
- we have to comply with PRC export laws and restrict distribution by

Overall, that is a no from me.  It is a deb, so "packaging" is no burden
for its users.


More information about the arch-dev-public mailing list