Hello Carsten, full ACK. Thanx for sharing your thoughts.
Bye Christian Carsten Wolff-2 wrote: > > Hi, > > what I get from the postings here is, that people are angry with Lars, > because > he effectively stopped working on eGW 1.x, after being one of the big > forces > behind the eGW development, which leaves some important code unmaintained. > Most of the other criticisms seem to be rooted somewhere near that fact. > > I can understand those feelings from an emotional point of view, but not > really from the concepts of the GPL. > > The agreement between the members of a FOSS project is basicly supplied by > the > license of the code. The widely used license that eGW uses only > guarantees, > that the receiver of a changed eGW has the right to receive the sourcecode > as > well. This does not bind developers in any way as far as the nature of the > changes is concerned. > > I see this in other projects every day. Developers sometimes vanish for a > thousand different reasons, or they shift their focus because of another > thousand reasons. This is normal. Basically a user or co-developer has no > right to demand anything else from any developer of GPL software than the > sourcecode of changed versions of the program. And not having the right to > demand something also means, you don't have the right to be angry at > someone > who does not meet your demands. Of course it might create a problem for > you > that you're stuck with unmaintained code, but that's just it. This can > happen > and that's clear from the start. > > This leads me to the conclusion, the only question regarding the current > situation in eGW is this: Will benefits come for both sides from > developing > Tine within egroupware.org, or not? > > [My personal answer: Absolutely. Compatibility between the two is an > important > advantage for both and will not happen, if the devs don't use the same > tools > and communication channels. Also, nobody who ever debugged eGW can deny > that > it's suffering from its' legacy. So in the best case, if Tine really > manages > to be a completely compatible rewrite of eGW written with clean coding > concepts, it would be like a lottery win. And in the worst case, if Tine > will > be a failure, eGW lost manpower for half a year or so.] > > Basically my advice is to find back to cooperation to the extend, which is > technically possible. For the supporters of eGW 1.x, this means to accept > the > fact, that maybe there will come a time when much of their code will be > replaced. For the Tine people this means to accept working on the same > platform as a person, they don't like personally (but this really should > be > possible, that's the case in any environment with many people in it). > > Carsten > -- > /\-ยด-/\ > ( @ @ ) > ________o0O___^___O0o________ > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft > Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. > http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ > _______________________________________________ > eGroupWare-core mailing list > eGroupWare-core@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/egroupware-core > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Thoughts-from-a-long-walk-home-tp15419313s3741p15428351.html Sent from the egroupware-core mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ eGroupWare-core mailing list eGroupWare-core@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/egroupware-core
