Hi Michael, On Thursday 08 Juli 2010 at 17:01:36 Michael Meeks wrote: > [...] > On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 10:28 +0200, Christian Hilberg wrote: > > We will try to map as much of Kolab's functionality as possible onto > > Evolution whithout changing Evolution itself (other than providing a > > plugin, that is). Especially, we will not touch core Evolution or E-D-S. > It would be good to know what we are missing though - if there are new > and interesting things that can be added to the front-end.
As we stumble across these things, we will let you know. :-) Right now, there is a "Journal" type in Kolab (which is what the Kolab reference client "Kontact" supports) which does not seem to have an equivalent in Evolution. There is the Memo type in Evolution (which seems to be held in an ECalComponent in E-D-S side - unsure about this, still), but the Memo does not seem to fully map with the Kolab/Kontact "Journal" type. But I may err here, corrections welcome (generally, that is :). > [...] > > Our project will be GPLv2 (or a comparable FLOSS license which will > > assure at least GPLv2's freedom level ;-). There should not be any > > licensing issues here. If there are doubts, please feel free to ask for > > clarification. > Soo - personally, I would love to see the code live inside e-d-s > and/or Evolution itself: that should make it easier to maintain longer term, > adapt for re-factoring, get translators involved etc. I'd like to refer you to http://mail.gnome.org/archives/evolution-hackers/2010-May/msg00003.html where a different point of view is presented: "We prefer backends for groupware servers to be packaged as a standalone extension module for Evolution. See for example evolution-exchange and evolution-mapi (and I believe the GroupWise backends will soon be split off similarly)" -- Matthew Barnes We assumed that this is an authorative answer especially since there was no veto. :) But maybe I see a contradiction here where none exists. > Licensing wise, the e-d-s code is currently LGPLv2, and Evolution is > LGPLv2 or v3 (at your choice). I would recommend sticking with that, or > going LGPLv2+, rather than having a plain GPLv2. Good point. I see no reason for not using LGPL. We will bring this to our customer's attention since it is their decision (if only for formalities' sake). General policy is to follow upstream project's licensing model. > [...] > > If Evolution staff will be willing to host our project sources within > > Evo git repo, we'll happily transfer our stuff there as soon as we > > have a first preview ready. > Perhaps something to dicuss on #evolution (irc.gimp.net) - but it'd be > great to have you working in the same git repo IMHO [ not that it's my > decision of course - I defer to Matthew/Chen etc. ;-] We'll be around for discussion. So far, all I can see is condition green. ;-) Thanks for the input, exciting times ahead. Best regards, Christian PS.: This went to Michael only, once again. I'm just not (yet) used to checking the TO: address when replying to a list posting since I implicitly assume the posting I answer to will have the list set as REPLY-TO: ... sorry for the delay -- kernel concepts GbR Tel: +49-271-771091-14 Sieghuetter Hauptweg 48 Fax: +49-271-771091-19 D-57072 Siegen http://www.kernelconcepts.de/
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ evolution-hackers mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ... http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers