discuss-gnustep
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[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 <address@hidden>:

> 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




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]