[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [GSWHackers] Re: OGo/GNUstep cooperation Re: Re[2]: Frameworks integ
From: |
Helge Hess |
Subject: |
Re: [GSWHackers] Re: OGo/GNUstep cooperation Re: Re[2]: Frameworks integration |
Date: |
Wed, 3 Mar 2004 00:11:17 +0100 |
On 02.03.2004, at 23:49, Fred Kiefer wrote:
I think you are wrong here, Helge.
OK, good to hear some other voice on the issue ;-)
A common development of a WebObjects clone would be beneficial to all
sides,
That is what I would assume but which doesn't seem to be a general
agreement on - at least if you take into account that this for obvious
reasons implies that on several things only one of the two base
implementations can be used (given that there is a 95%+ match in terms
of API).
but the questions that Manuel raised on the organisational form are
all valid and must be solved, no matter who takes part in that
project. So I would call them productive suggestions. I would expect,
that if you accept them as this, a solution to them wont be too far
away.
OK.
Lets analyse what we have: two LGPL frameworks. So do we have major
organizational issues? No. In the worst case we can maintain two
variants of the same codebase, license is not an issue at all, both
frameworks are free software in all respects relevant to FSF (which
also nullifies any rants regarding company or marketing issues).
We have the issue of copyright assignment. There will be no FSF
copyright assignment of SOPE code. If this is a must for gnustep-web
people, we are already stuck. Hopefully its not. And after all
copyright assignments are *not possible* in Germany, and I guess the
same is true in France (and the whole EU).
This is IMHO thought too far ahead, but even after a merge there could
be two repositories - one for gnustep-web and one for SOPE. The
important thing is that code is shared, at least a 95% sharing should
be possible given that the APIs should match.
So after all I still (as written in other mails) recommend that we
should start cooperation slowly. Currently I think the best way is too
see what gstep-web and SOPE applications are available and try to port
them to either environment by adding missing functionalities and fixing
API incompatibilities.
More useful and reliable comparisons regarding stability and
performance of respective code sections can be made if we have the
same, real-world, application running on both servers.
For some weird reason I haven't been able to locate a single, LGPL/GPL
application based on gnustep-web - but there must be some, I already
asked and wait for input.
I would also encourage gstep-web to try to port OGo or other
applications part of OGo CVS to gnustep-web (eg SimpleScheduler in Misc
might be a starting point). This would require merges of several parts
of SOPE with gnustep-web to import the missing functionalities.
I think thats a good plan to get started. To actually make that plan
happen, we need:
a) work on the gnustep-web side to see what is required to make SOPE
applications
run on that
b) input regarding existing gnustep-web application, so that SOPE
developers can
start working on that from the other side
best regards,
Helge
--
http://docs.opengroupware.org/Members/helge
OpenGroupware.org
- Re: OGo/GNUstep cooperation Re: Re[2]: Frameworks integration, Adam Fedor, 2004/03/01
- Re: OGo/GNUstep cooperation Re: Re[2]: Frameworks integration, Manuel Guesdon, 2004/03/01
- Re: OGo/GNUstep cooperation Re: Re[2]: Frameworks integration, Helge Hess, 2004/03/02
- Re: [GSWHackers] Re: OGo/GNUstep cooperation Re: Re[2]: Frameworks integration, Manuel Guesdon, 2004/03/02
- Re: [GSWHackers] Re: OGo/GNUstep cooperation Re: Re[2]: Frameworks integration, Helge Hess, 2004/03/02
- Re: [GSWHackers] Re: OGo/GNUstep cooperation Re: Re[2]: Frameworks integration, Manuel Guesdon, 2004/03/02
- Re: [GSWHackers] Re: OGo/GNUstep cooperation Re: Re[2]: Frameworks integration, Helge Hess, 2004/03/02
- Re: [GSWHackers] Re: OGo/GNUstep cooperation Re: Re[2]: Frameworks integration, Alex Perez, 2004/03/03
- Re: [GSWHackers] Re: OGo/GNUstep cooperation Re: Re[2]: Frameworks integration, Fred Kiefer, 2004/03/03
- Re: [GSWHackers] Re: OGo/GNUstep cooperation Re: Re[2]: Frameworks integration,
Helge Hess <=
- Re: [GSWHackers] Re: OGo/GNUstep cooperation Re: Re[2]: Frameworks integration, Pete French, 2004/03/04
- Re: [GSWHackers] Re: OGo/GNUstep cooperation Re: Re[2]: Frameworks integration, Gregory John Casamento, 2004/03/08
- Re: [GSWHackers] Re: OGo/GNUstep cooperation Re: Re[2]: Frameworks integration, Helge Hess, 2004/03/08
- Re: [GSWHackers] Re: OGo/GNUstep cooperation Re: Re[2]: Frameworks, NeXT, 2004/03/10
- Re: [GSWHackers] Re: OGo/GNUstep cooperation Re: Re[2]: Frameworks, Helge Hess, 2004/03/10
- Re: [GSWHackers] Re: OGo/GNUstep cooperation Re: Re[2]: Frameworks, Marco Scheurer, 2004/03/13
- Re[2]: [GSWHackers] Re: OGo/GNUstep cooperation Re: Re[2]: Frameworks integration, Manuel Guesdon, 2004/03/10
- Re[2]: [GSWHackers] Re: OGo/GNUstep cooperation Re: Re[2]: Frameworks integration, Manuel Guesdon, 2004/03/04