Re: new modules consensus

[William Jon McCann <mccannwj pha jhu edu>]

Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> ...
>  - libsoup
>    gal
>    gtkhtml
>    evolution-data-server
>    evolution
>    evolution-exchange

The Evolution team has worked really hard this year to make this 
possible.  Thanks folks.

Yes, for inclusion.  With the following qualifications. ;)

> ...
>      Some discussion on removing the Evolution "brand" from the 
>      interface, what its menu entry should be and the like ... The
>      debate seemed to peter out with no agreement, but it also didn't
>      look like an issue which would block Evolution's acceptance.

I would like to see the following change made before 2.8:
http://lists.ximian.com/archives/public/evolution-patches/2004-July/006204.html
JP said he would like to see some discussion here and from usability people.

The above patch is a half-step.  As is well known to the evolution 
hackers, I support breaking up evolution (in a future release) into 
separate applications that are tightly integrated with GNOME rather than 
integrated into a separate shell.

>      Evolution 1.5 doesn't use the new fileselector because it doesn't 
>      want to depend on GTK+ 2.4. There was discussion about adding a 
>      #ifdef patch and the Evolution team was happy to have that happen
>      so long as someone was willing to do the work. However, that
>      doesn't seem to have happened. I think it was obvious that most
>      people found this a huge disappointment, but that most were willing
>      to accept it so long as it is indicative of a trend for the future.

This patch is making it's way through the approval process.  It looks 
like it will be accepted.

>      Discussion over Evolution's copyright assignment policy start out
>      as "its relatively harmless and not a huge issue" to a gigantic 
>      flamewar. I haven't followed the discussion closely enough to be 
>      confident that I'll do a good job of summarising the issues, but 
>      briefly:
>  ...
>      Its clear there is yet no overwhelming consensus on whether or not 
>      we should include Evolution in GNOME 2.8. What I think is clear, 
>      though, is that there is a huge *desire* to include it - both from
>      the GNOME community and the Evolution team. I think we need to 
>      decide on whether 
>
>        a) whether any of the issues listed above absolutely need to 
>           resolved before inclusion, or 
>
>        b) whether we are confident that the Evolution team and the GNOME
>           community will resolve these issues post inclusion

I say b).

I would like to see Alan's concerns addressed formally.  Also, as 
someone who has already signed the contract and is not a lawyer, I 
wonder about this:

From 1(a)
"This assignment applies to all past and future Works of Developer that 
constitute changes and enhancements to the Program."

Above that it defines Program to be "Ximian Evolution".

So, could this mean that anything I ever do or have done that might be 
interpreted as a change or enhancement to the evolution codebase is 
copyrighted to "Ximian, its successors and assigns"?

Perhaps the language can be modified to include the concept of "changes 
and enhancements publicly submitted to Ximian".


One other thing is:

From 6(a)
"Developer warrants to Ximian that his reports in accord with section 2 
above are accurate and that he is the sole copyright holder of the Works 
conveyed either now or in the future under this agreement."

This seems to bar anyone who works for a company that requires its own 
(joint or exclusive) copyright assignment from contributing to Ximian 
Evolution.


Anyway, we need it, the code is ready, and we can fork it if forced to.

Jon