Re: [Savannah-hackers] submission of Brutus - Collaboration Framework - savannah.nongnu.org

[Sylvain Beucler]

Hello,

On Sat, Sep 04, 2004 at 11:46:05AM +0200, Jules Colding wrote:
> Ok. One of the current problems with Exchange is that only MAPI clients
> has access to the full feature set of Exchange. This is a problem for
> clients on free operating systems, and anywhere else for that matter.
> 
> To break the very strong bond between Exchange and MAPI, which is
> responsible in part for the success of MS Office (including Outlook),
> MAPI must be available for non-Windows clients. The only technically
> feasible way to achieve that is to wrap MAPI at the server end. The
> result would be:
> 
> A) Exchange on Windows
> B) Brutus server on Windows
> C) Brutus client on any platform
> 
> I do not do this to encourage use of Exchange, but to encourage
> development of a credible free (as in GPL) alternative to Outlook.
> Letting users freely choose their desktop platform of choice is one step
> in the right direction.
> 
> My second goal with Brutus is to develop a native Brutus server, which
> would probably be GNU/Linux based, to replace Exchange. This is the
> second step.
> 
> The result of my efforts would be, I hope, to effectively counter the
> Exchange/Outlook mousetrap and make people move to free platforms of
> their choice.

This seems ok. I will discuss it with the other Savannah hackers
before to make a final decision.


> > Also, note that commercial does not mean proprietary. 
> 
> No, that is so true. The commercial part in my equation is honestly to
> offer support and commercial licenses.

I still feel that you put 'free' and 'commercial' as opposites when
you talk about 'commercial licenses'. The GPL is a commercial license;
what you might mean is dual-licensing your work under a proprietary
license, which is different.


> My problem with the "V2 or later" is that V3 is completely unknown to me
> and almost anyone else. V3 could, in principle be a license from hell.
> Offering Brutus under V2 is no problem. I know V2 and agree to it, but
> saying "or later" is opening up for a can of worms. I could be convinced
> to say "V2 or V3" if I was let into the V3 drafts, but the "or later"
> approach is just to much of letting the fate of Brutus, license wise,
> sving in the wind.
> 
> Comments?

Yes, http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#VersionTwoOrLater
adresses some of your concerns. Incidentally, v2only projects are not
accepted at Savannah, but that will not keep me from discussing that
fact :)

-- 
Sylvain