Re: [GSWHackers] Re: OGo/GNUstep cooperation Re: Re[2]: Frameworks integration

[Helge Hess]

On Mar 8, 2004, at 1:49 PM, Fred Kiefer wrote:
> I really think, that this tone does not help in the current discussion.

Well, I did not start out with this tone. But of course I agree.

> So if this is possible, why would it be a fundamentally different 
> problem to assign the copyright to the FSF?

There is no fundamental difference between assigning copyright to FSF 
or to a company.

This is getting us into a what-kind-of-opensource/free-software 
discussion already discussed a meriads of time. There are a lot of good 
reasons why one does not want to assign copyright to FSF (and still be 
comitted to free software!) and we really shouldn't discuss them here.

Lets stay with the fact that SOPE copyright won't be assigned to FSF 
and if that is considered is blocker for gstep-web people, cooperation 
indeed gets into one direction (SOPE can reuse code from gstep-web, but 
not the reverse).

> You also did not answer to the mail Gregory send on FLA (Or at least I 
> still did not get an answer from you, currently my GNUstep mailing 
> lists are five days behind.)

I did, the lists have a major lag. Before this is viable, all GNUstep 
code needs to implement FLA.

> Sorry Helge, but all of this gives me the feeling, that you want to 
> distract the discussion.

Hm, in what sense? I do not want to distract the discussion.

> As Manual stated, free software projects are more than anything else 
> build on trust relationships, lets try to build up some more.

What do you think is a proper way to resolve that?

Actually I'm *extremely* offended by the huge distrust going towards me 
(with sometimes weird argumentations) :-| I didn't expect that at all.
OGo/SOPE is released as LGPL/GPL. That can't be reverted and is 
somewhat the point why I don't understand the distrust argument 
regarding that.

regards,
  Helge
--
http://docs.opengroupware.org/Members/helge/
OpenGroupware.org