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

[Lars Kneschke]

Dave Hall <address@hidden> schrieb: 
>Lars Kneschke <address@hidden> wrote:
>> I also think the best idea is to work together. But i'm not shure 
>> if this is
>> possible.
>
>We are finalising our vision for where we want the project to go over
>the next year.  This will be a discussion for the phpGroupWare community
>to participate in.  We are not reliant on any project for our code base.
> phpGroupWare has a long history of being a project that sets the bar
>for web based groupware - and this will continue.
You forget that the bar was also set be the former phpgw developers. So the
same also true for egw.

>We are looking at adopting all relevant open standards.  As the project
>is L/GPL legally we can't stop you from using our code, if you comply
>with the licensing conditions.  But this doesn't mean it is done with
>our support or respect for your actions.
So what? It's up to you. I told you  that i would like to work toghether
with the phpgw project. If you don't like to work together, we simpy
integrate what we like. That's opensource and you can do the same with our
code.

>I have no recollection or record of me being informed of this.  I would
>never support the importing of non free items into our cvs tree - my
>track record on this is clear.  

I can't judge this. Reiner says you knows, you say you don't know. I don't
know what is right.

>> The javascript calendar which is 
>> released under
>> LGPL did become removed immediatily, because of some magic reason.
>
>It is not LGPL (and so not GPL compatible) and that is why it was
>removed.  It was a new commit, that is why it was removed.  If the jscal
>licensing issue is persued, it could be found that EGO as a project has
>breached the GPL and so Section 4 of the license could be triggered
>which may mean all members of your project lose the right to ever
>distribute phpgw or any derived works.  This is not FUD, but fact. 
>IANAL, so i won't speculate further.

The only fact i can see, is that you are the only person i was speaking
with, which says it is not LGPL. I was talking with 4 different people(also
fsf members) which can't see any problem. Maybe you can tell what the
problem is?

>Let work on a better solution.  We continue to innovate while you
>imitate.  Before the fork occurred it was clear that none of the leaders
>of you project had any real commitment to working with those committed
>to the sucess of phpGroupWare.  Post fork nothing has changed, except we
>have more time to code, rather than playing "ego" games.
Ok, thats your point of view. But, again phpgw was not developed only by
you, but also by the former phpgw members. I don't why ralf, pim and i where
not commited to phpgw. Did we not supply enough code? Did we not help users
to solve problems? Dave, this FUD too. We where commited to phpgw, but we
were unhappy with projects structure. That's the reason why we forked.

>Yes there is a lot of hostility from some of us towards your project, I
>do not see this changing, but that is because of the stunts you keep on
>trying to pull.  Next time you have a great idea for undermining phpGW
>or related projects, don't waste your time - it won't work.  We will not
>let FUD and slander slow the progress of phpGroupWare.

Ok, next time we don't inform you if have another copyright/security/what
ever problem we might discover.

Cu
--
written with FeLaMiMail