--- Martin Kauss <bishoph at open-xchange.org> wrote:

> On Apr 30, 2006 06:51 PM, Balint Reczey <balint_reczey at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > --- Martin Kauss <bishoph at open-xchange.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Apr 28, 2006 12:12 PM, Erwin Rol <mailinglists at erwinrol.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Fri, 2006-04-28 at 09:07 +0200, Robert Penz wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > >    The previous OX versions weren't DFSG free either, since
> > > they depend
> > > > > >    on Sun's closed source JavaMail API implementation, but
> > > there is a
> > > > > >    project to make Open- Xchange work on free Java tools by
> > > improving the 
> > > > > >    available tools and patching Open- Xchange:
> > > > > >    http://www.open- xchange.org/oxwiki/FreeJDKs
> > > > > >    After that project succeeds, Open- Xchange will become a
> 
> > > > > >    true, DFSG compliant Open Source Software.
> > > > > 
> > > > > about what timeframe are we talking here?
> > > > 
> > > > Depending on the development community, what i did now was just
> > > hacking
> > > > things. But if it is really made a public project things may go
> a
> > > lot
> > > > faster because their could be more developers and testers. But
> the
> > > > changes will be so big that this pretty much would mean a fork
> of
> > > > Open-Xchange. 
> > > > 
> > > > > the difference is that I don't think the community is strong
> > > enough in
> > > > > this case to successfully fork.
> > > > 
> > > > You never know, lot of developers might be interested when it
> > > actually
> > > > runs on GCJ, since that would make it possible to include it in
> > > most
> > > > linux distributions. 
> > > > 
> > > > > >    I think Netline should keep GPL as the license of Open-
> > > Xchange 
> > > > > >    Community Edition and rerelease 0.8.2 under GPL.
> > > > > 
> > > > > that would have made it easier thats correct.
> > > > 
> > > > Netline still wants the copyright assigned to them, so they can
> > > > relicense the work for their commercial version. This prevents
> the
> > > > addition of code from other projects like classpath, etc. So no
> > > matter
> > > > if the whole thing is GPL or not, their still won't be much of
> a
> > > > developer community, just a user community. 
> > > > 
> > > > - Erwin
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Erwin,
> > > 
> > > i told this some times before: Our approach is no "ideological"
> one.
> > > We want to offer a fast, rich, usable, extensible and helpful
> > > application.
> > > 
> > > If the classpath project (or any other) helps us to come closer
> to
> > > our
> > > vision and to our objectives we will use such libraries and work
> > > together with this projects. You wanted to start on this issue
> when
> > > the
> > > stable version is out and we had a conversation about this topic
> some
> > > weeks
> > > ago AFAIR. Let us see what we can achieve together.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Greetings,
> > > 
> > > Martin Kauss
> > 
> > Hi Martin,
> > 
> > I understand that the ideological approach of Debian, Fedora and
> other
> > distributions does not attract you.
> > If you want Open-Xchange to be included by those distributions as a
> > free sofware, it has to be rereleased under a DFSG compatible of
> OSI
> > approved license: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/ .
> > You may want Open-Xchange to be included, because you can get a LOT
> of
> > users who want to buy OXLook licenses, support, and documentation.
> > 
> > I think that Netline could make bigger money by opening the source
> of
> > Open-Xchange, excluding OXLook, building a development community
> around
> > and selling documentation, support and OXTenders to proprietary
> > systems, like Outlook.
> > The development community could help you to make visions to
> reality,
> > but now it is fragmented since Netline does not accept patches.
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > Balint
> > 
> 
> 
> Hi.
> 
> Who says that we do not accept patches? This seems to be
> a misunderstanding. maybe you can clarify this a little bit.
> 
> The question about the supported distributions can not be solved
> today, but also Debian differs between program source code, images
> and documentation.
> 
> Maybe somebody can explain us the Fedora policies and licenses
> in detail and where the problems exactly are for such a distribution
> (http://fedora.redhat.com/about/trademarks/).
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Martin Kauss
> 
Hi Martin,
Ok, i was wrong, Netline accepts patches, but as i wrote in the thread,
open-xchange's development process is not as open as other projects.
Things may be far better if the community could have read access to the
current CVS HEAD, or at least the community branch.

The Fedora policies about licenses is here:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-76294f12c6b481792eb001ba9763d95e2792e825
They require free software to have an OSI approved/GPL compatible
license.
Trademarks and brand names are a different area. 

Cheers,
Balint



		
___________________________________________________________ 
Yahoo! For Good - Sponsor a London Marathon runner - http://uk.promotions.yahoo.com/charity/london-marathon