Re: Cocotron

[Helge Hess]

On Dec 24, 2006, at 10:49, Matt Rice wrote:
> just figured i would post a link to the thread i
> believe you are referring to here
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/discuss-gnustep/2004-03/ 
> msg00008.html

Yes, I guess so. I think it turned into a big flamewar which we don't  
want to repeat ;-)
But after all its quite a good demonstration on why we have duplicates.

Eg why would Cocotron adopt gnustep-gui if they already have a  
version which works much better *for them*.
I wonder whether it would be a good approach to let them be the Cocoa  
for Windows if thats their focus and concentrate on Linux. Maybe try  
to make them use gnustep-base.


> but a large problem was the copyright assignment issue

Thats right, copyright assignment is a huge blocker. It almost forgot  
about this one, but it was mentioned several times now.
(BTW: in fact I have done the copyright assignment for GNUstep)

Hm, yes. Thats probably a huge issue for people coming from Cocoa.  
They already have a problem with just the license, and _then_ they  
are also supposed to assign copyright.
You really need to provide a very good value in return to make that  
worthwhile.


> i'm not sure what is hindering you from replacing
> SOPE-imap with GNUMail/Pantomime, and i'm not actually
> sure if GNUMail is even copyright assigned to the FSF
> it doesn't say Copyright (c) ... Free Software
> Foundation anywhere...

What hinders me is that this means a lot of work :-)

Obviously the copyright-assignment is only an issue for GNUstep  
(can't work with developers who do not want to assign it to the FSF),  
not the other way around.

> so i'm wondering if project cohesion is reducing
> collaboration in this case, because GSWeb and
> SOPE-appserver cannot get along is that hindering
> progress replacing libFoundation with gnustep-base,

Its not hindering the gnustep-base port at all.

> or alternately if GSWeb and GNUstep core were
> separate,
> you might have issues with the GSWeb and still be able
> to maintain a 'healthy relationship' with core.

I think I do have a healthy relationship with core :-) The current  
issue is that work needs to be done and nobody can force anyone in  
doing that work.

My current opinion wrt GNUstep is that I would like to use gnustep- 
make / gnustep-base and just don't care about / "blend out" the  
remaining stuff. Everything else in GNUstep is useless _for me_ and I  
don't see that this will change.
If GNUstep would be just the parts I need, it would be perfect :-)


> i should point out i'm not pointing any fingers at
> GSWeb specifically it seems to be an instance of a
> larger problem, similar issues come up with those
> wanting it to be a desktop and those wanting a set of
> core libraries

Probably you are on the right track here. GNUstep is a LOT of stuff,  
it acts like some kind of wrapper project for everything people come  
up with. Which obviously leads to duplicates with other projects  
working with other Foundations (mostly Cocoa of course).


> now i'm not sure if/how much any of this cohesion is
> caused by project accessibility, is GSWeb and core
> under the GNUstep project umbrella because we as the
> umbrella haven't done a good enough job making outside
> projects using GNUstep core easily accessible?
>
> so if we could make the GNUstep umbrella a separate
> project entirely, which could have some specific
> objectives a few come to mind like
>
> help secure permanent hosting if needed for free
> software projects using the GNUstep core
> make easily accessible projects which fall under the
> GNUstep umbrella
> maintain a neutral stance regarding competing software
> projects though promoting collaboration
>
> so with something like this in place, maybe we could
> collaborate more, by being able to keep disagreements
> and religious issues isolated to their respective
> projects, and prevent them reflecting upon GNUstep as
> a whole and hindering potential for further
> collaboration...

All that sounds quite reasonable and to the point to me.

Greets,
  Helge