[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Frameworks integration
From: |
nicolas |
Subject: |
Re: Frameworks integration |
Date: |
Sat, 28 Feb 2004 17:38:27 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 3.2.1 |
Selon Helge Hess <helge.hess@opengroupware.org>:
> On 27.02.2004, at 18:35, Adam Fedor wrote:
> >> The proposal is to put skyrix-xml and Tryst in the cvs (dev-libs),
> >> and possibly change their name to be more developer-friendly (ie a
> >> descriptive name followed by "kit" --
> >> RendezvousKit or ServiceDiscoveryKit for Tryst for example).
> >
> > To be put in CVS, they would need to change the license and assign the
> > copyright to the FSF. I think Chris was open to this but I have a
> > feeling Helge would not.
>
> Correct. I don't see the point of copyright assignment to FSF and
> indeed this is AFAIK impossible in Germany (you cannot assign copyright
> to someone else).
Yes... I think anyway that others projects could have the same dilemna.
It could be perhaps better to create a "gnustep kits" project, non-gnu,
hosting all the kits. It sure will be easier to host frameworks on it than
hosting them on main gnustep cvs and thus requiring for each a fsf copyright
assignment... yet it will provide us a single entry point for useful
frameworks. What do you think ? it sounds to me like a good compromise.
[anyway that would be additionally to the real important thing to do,
that is, display/advertise the available frameworks on the website
and provide releases...]
> On the other side all libraries of OGo are LGPL, so I really wonder
> whether a copyright assignment its absolutely necessary for GNUstep for
> self contained additions. Its certainly not required for producing free
> software.
yes..
> We also have a somewhat weird situation with regards to gnustep-web. I
> think it was mainly started by Manuel because there was nothing
> available and the SKYRiX stuff wasn't yet available as GPL.
> Yet with OGo we now do have a high quality and proven WebObjects clone
> and gnustep-web is somewhat obsolete for practical purposes (no offense
> intended at all!) Not sure how we should proceed on this front.
:-/
>
> best regards,
> Helge
--
Nicolas Roard
Re: Frameworks integration, Chris B. Vetter, 2004/02/27
Re: Frameworks integration, Adam Fedor, 2004/02/27
Re: Frameworks integration, Brent Fulgham, 2004/02/27
Re: Frameworks integration, S.J.Chun, 2004/02/28