Re: [Phpgroupware-developers] iDots Template (was: DotGNU 0.1 CD-ROM available from CheapBytes.com)

[Chris Weiss]

Reiner Jung (address@hidden) wrote:
>> Pim Snell created a template which *may* involve a breach of copyright -
>> known as idots.
>
>I DON'T understand that you parents DON'T tell you. Dave DON't lie.
>YOU was involved, and now you tell, I know nothing ? Before we spoke
>about it, he told us about problems with license. We say that it is OK,
>but we solve the problem.

word is word, but do you have a log to back this up?

>> Reneir Jung has made some claims about phpGW containing material that is
>> in breach of copyright.  The was done on a thread discussing the release
>> of DotGNU 0.1.  The appears to be a lame attempt at FUD PR from EGO.
>
>Wake up. We release yesterday our new release, with the changed
>template. Have nothing to do with phpgw! You think you are so impotent ?
>Not for our project. We are former developers, but we have our own
>project now!

Seeing as your project start off as phpGW it would appear that phpGW is pretty
important.  None the less, what does you're release have to do with anything?

>> No one from EGO would provide any further information regarding the
>> claims made.
>
>What you need. You receive all what is necessary to solve the problem.
>We inform the devs. Should we solve your problem ?
>

First, as I understand it, you recieved a letter from phpBB concerning the eGW
website layout, which is based on the iDots template.  Then, all on your own, 
you
make the jump to point out our iDots template probably has the same problem, 
except
that you don't actually say what the problem is.  You didn't inform the devs of
anything, but lucky for us knecke isn't trying to stir up FUD and was willing 
to be
flat out honest with us in what the problem is.  Knecke didn't know the whole 
story,
but he certainly told us enough to get the problem worked out, very much unlike 
you.

Seems to me that it would be in eGW's best intrest to at least be on working 
terms
with phpGW in the areas where our code is still shared.  There are still 
potential
exploits in the code, there are in every project no matter the origins or 
language,
and if we don't have a working relationship one of us is likely to be in big 
trouble
down the road.  And given our user base vs. yours, i'm willing to bet it won't 
be us.

I don't understand why there has to be all the grief.  This should have been 
simple.
-the code started off in our CVS, you copied out.
-you changed the code for what you believe was licensing issues
-when asked what you changed and why your response could have been "oh, we had 
to
remove X and change X" instead of "go look at the code, i don't have to tell you
anything"

this was VERY disrespectfull and almost against the GPL.  Your only saving 
grace is
that you did indeed release the code.  Why does it have to be like this.  You 
and
Dave are just 2 poeple, so what if you can't get along, talk to someone else.