[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Open ITP without apparent work on it

Laszlo Boszormenyi wrote:

Hi Shachar, Matthew, Riku, Daniel,

On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 22:42 +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 12:53:15PM +0200, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
Bug #269329 is an ITP for Open Xchange - the Suse server gone GPL.
Yes, the Open-Xchage code is GPL, but last year there was a (small)
chance as far as I can remember that it is going to be closed again, or
at least have a non-DFSG compatible license.

The thing that prompted me to ask was this. I was in a conference a couple of days ago (HP Linux roadshow), and Suse's CTO was there. When he was asked about an exchange replacement he mentioned this, as well as all sorts of other solutions. When I talked to him after the conference, he said that Netline's opening up the code was a result of pressure from Novell. Whether that actually changes anything or not - I don't know.

Also, note that OX can not
be compiled without non-free 'libs' (ie jars).Thus OX should be in
contrib if it is packaged. Well, as I see source of JavaMail recently
released under the Java Research License, so I should look into it if
that helps in the case or not (ie compiling the source for ourself, do
a package and use it). It seems upstream is not going to use free
JavaMail implementations, see my mails and the replies in the past[1].
So a quick test with GNU JavaMail still gives a lot of compilation
problems (just an example):
[javac] /home/gcs/open-xchange-0.8.0-beta4/src/com/openexchange/webmail/folder/WebmailFolderUtilities.java:52:
       package com.sun.mail.imap does not exist
[javac] import com.sun.mail.imap.IMAPFolder;
[javac]                          ^

I'm afraid I created false expectations. That was not the intention. The order of things was "Hmm, let's see if it's in Debian", followed by "Maybe I can package it", followed by "It already has an ITP, but no >apparent< activity." I then wondered whether it's worth the time to look at it, or whether things were badly out of shape.

I'm afraid that people, probably out of sheer desire to see this package in, assume I'm further along the road than I really am. I assure you, had there been a package ready, the title would have said "RFS".

You are _almost_ right.

Sorry about that. The subject of the thread better describes what I meant to say.

On the other hand,
I had a terrible car accident, was in hospital for months (my scull
and some ribs broke, was in something like coma [deep sleeping as my
doctors say]). I am still not fully healed, but much better by now.
And may you have a complete and quick recovery. A friend of mine lost all short term memory after an accident for almost a month. Conversation would go "Where am I? In a hospital. What happened? You were in an accident. Can I have a mirror?", at which point the conversation would start over. After about a month of this, she said "This mirror looks familiar". She lost two semesters. One in which she didn't study because she was in the hospital, and another in which she did study, but was totally wiped from her memory. Her lesson - don't drive a motorcycle.

Yes, you can, at least I permit it to any of you as I am the original
bug submitter. Also, if the license issues can be solved (ie OX can be
ported to any of the free JavaMail implementations; but then the one
doing it should follow OX development and update the port on the long
run), then I would even sponsor the upload, as I am a Debian Developer.
I think I'll try to package it one was or the other. If it goes into contrib as a first stage, fine. If not, I'll put it on an unofficial site. All this assuming, of course, I scale the odds :-/

I do want the package in main, but I don't know how difficult it will be to:
1. Make sure it compiles with free build tools.
2. Get upstream to include this.

I am free to give away it; and hope the noted things can be solved. At
least OX remained open with the 0.8beta releases, but compilation issues
with free tools still should be done. I was far to finish it, and the
codebase changed a lot since then. :-|
And you were further down along the road than I am now. Don't get your hopes too high. If I manage to get this rolling, I'll check in here again.

Well, yes, it is something like an extended holiday. :( I am still on
my way to get back my life straight (get back my workplace, restart
studying for my second degree somewhen but more importantly to get
healed fully) as well.
Good luck with that. (In Hebrew, the parallel for "good luck" translates as "may you succeed", which I find more appropriate. Then again, I may have been conditioned).

I don't mind working on it, with the full risk of the original packager submitting a package before I manage to find a sponsore to mine etc.
We can stay in contact if you want, and inform each other how things
are going.
I think it's more appropriate to do that off list. I'll certainly keep you posted.

I emphasis that I would even sponsor your package upload if the
license/compilation things are solved and you have the package ready.

Laszlo Boszormenyi aka GCS
I have to say this does not seem very foreboding. It seems netline's' objection to using a free alternative is a technical one. Technical objections are, in my experience, the easiest to handle.


Shachar Shemesh
Lingnu Open Source Consulting ltd.
Have you backed up today's work? http://www.lingnu.com/backup.html

Reply to: