Re: PROPOSAL: Evolution for GNOME 2.8

[Elijah P Newren <newren math utah edu>]

For what it's worth...

> <quote who="Havoc Pennington">
> > On Thu, 2004-06-03 at 13:13, Paolo Borelli wrote:
> > > My primary concern with this is that some people (me included, but other
> > > on irc agreed) which just want to submit a couple of patches to scratch
> > > their itches, often cannot be bothered to do the required paperwork even
> > > if they would have no problem with the copyright assignment itself.
> 
> > I don't think this is a big concern; as Nat says copyright assignment is
> > a good idea.

I agree it's not a big concern, but I'll have to disagree somewhat with
you and Nat on copyright assignment.  I do think it's an issue, for the
very reason Paolo raised (and the fact that it's
yet-another-barrier-to-entry for prospective developers).  However, I
don't think it's a very big issue and I do support Evolution becoming
part of Gnome 2.8.

<quote who="Jeff Waugh">
> > What I'd worry about more is the asymmetric assignment situation for say
> > OO.org (and I think but I'm not sure for Evolution), where one company has
> > the exclusive right to create proprietary versions or link in proprietary
> > code. Basically we're talking about a GPL loophole.
> 
> > I do support including Evolution in 2.8, however to the extent I'd worry
> > about copyright assignment this is the issue I would raise.
> 
> Is that really a huge problem for the community in general, with Evolution?

Personally, I think it is an issue but I think it's a very minor one. 
I'm all in favor of Evolution becoming part of Gnome 2.8.


Elijah