On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 05:05:31PM -0700, Tad Glines wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 4:22 PM, Brian May > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 06:40:53AM -0700, nemeseri wrote: > >> Is there a possibility that google will make the Google Wave Web > >> client open source and installable for us? > >> ... > > > > See the discussions in Office Hours 2009-09-03 (from memory). > > I did find something in "Office Hours: 2009-08-20 - Transcript". > Near the bottom:
I was thinking about the answer to my question in 2009-09-03: me: Ok, I will start. I hope this is on-topic for this discussion, however I believe it is a big issue: How much of the sandbox client/server will be open sourced? What parts will remain proprietary? Will the open source community be expected to implement any missing components for it to work outside Google with full features? Sep 3 Vadim Gerasimov: The official answer is at http://googlewavedev.blogspot.com/2009/07/google-wave-federation-protocol-and.html Sep 3 Vadim Gerasimov: We plan to opensource more code but haven't worked out the schedule, yet. Sep 3 me: Will wait then. What happens here, I think, may be very significant to if Wave is widely adopted or not. Sep 3 Pamela Fox: The hardest part for developers to replicate will be the rich editor, I'd say, so cross your fingers that we can get that code out to the world. (we'll cross ours too) Sep 3 James Purser: yar, fingers crossed. Sep 3 me: My fingers are crossed ;-). Sep 3 Chris Marino: Cross our fingers? Sounds like you're hedging here. Can you be any more specific? (you here being Google). Sep 3 Pamela Fox: Lars mentioned open-sourcing the editor during the I/O keynote, but we haven't said anything more authoritive since then. It's something we want to do, but it will take time. Sep 3 Chris Marino: Now I'm even more confused. I see now that you're talking about the rich editor, not the entire client? Right? Assuming that's the case, what other things that are part of the client that we might not see in a ref impl.? Sep 3 Vadim Gerasimov: We'd like to open source as much of the client code as possible. Early 2010 is our target, but it is very much to be determined. Sep 3 me: Do you plan to release any of the server code currently used by the Sandbox? Or will this be the FedOne server + improvements? Sep 3 James Purser: >From discussions I've had with some of the Googlers, FedOne consists of a >small part of the wavesandbox server with a focus on federation. As they work, >they're bringing the two branches back into sync. Correct me if I'm wrong. Sep 3 me: Hopefully you are right, and approach would make sense too. Sep 3 Pamela Fox: You might want to read this forum post in addition to the blog post, if you haven't yet: http://groups.google.com/group/wave-protocol/browse_thread/thread/618ff4e9ef477e80# Nice snippet: "This code will evolve into the shared codebase (that we'll use and we hope others will too)." (James is correct) Sep 3 me: Oh, your right, I missed that first time I read it. Thanks. === cut === I thought this was of interest too: James Purser: One more for FedOne, what plans are there to bring persistance to the FedOne server? Sep 3 Pamela Fox: Not in the near future - closer goals are to have the fedone impl use proper blip/document structure. Sep 3 me: Does this mean FedOne will get full support for OT? Or is this a seperate unrelated issue? Sep 3 Pamela Fox: Yes, that is also a priority. Likely not until after 9/30. -- Brian May <[email protected]> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Wave Protocol" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/wave-protocol?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
