|
| From: | Pedro Ivo Andrade Tavares |
| Subject: | Re: "external" frameworks |
| Date: | Thu, 27 Dec 2001 18:08:12 -0200 |
At 16:54 26/12/2001, Chris B. Vetter wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2001 03:15:51 -0200 Pedro Ivo Andrade Tavares <ptavares@iname.com> wrote: > I did, around that timeframe... I sent my patches to them, and it > would seem some of my changes were integrated on their main sources.. > Search the list archives, and you'll find some comments I made at the > time. > After my (admittedly naïve) port, Karl Kraft had another go at it, > and he also sent them his patches. That would explain all the #ifdef GNUSTEP ...
Well, I haven't looked at these frameworks in a long time, so I can't tell you which parts are mine and which are Karl's. I can tell you the Omni guys were very open to our contact, though.
> The license is something I can live with. It's similar to qmail's, > but not so restrictive. So can I, but - (I admit, I'm not savvy when it comes to the GNU license) if we could get Omni to allow us to use their framework (that is, the source, ported to GNUstep, with their approval) "as is" - we might get more developers interested in GNUstep.
Indeed we would. I like OmniFoundation a lot, and OmniNetworking, in my opinion, should be the defacto standard for network programming in ObjC.
The OmniGroup developers seem interested in supporting GNUstep. However, they are a very small team, and haven't got the resources to track the differences in implementation. It's up to us to show them it can be done cleanly and easily (which I do hope is truer now than two years ago).
If the frameworks compiled cleanly on GNUstep, they would certainly consider a OmniWeb port. I'd love to see that!
Pedro Ivo Tavares
| [Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |