Re: Module proposal: Empathy for GNOME 2.22

[Martyn Russell <martyn imendio com>]

Xavier Claessens wrote:
> Le jeudi 27 septembre 2007 �0:07 +0200, Mikael Hallendal a �it :
>> 27 sep 2007 kl. 09.07 skrev Xavier Claessens:
>> 
>> Hi,

Hi,

>>> Right, libempathy and libemapthy-gtk are GPL because it contains
>>> code from Gossip. libempathy mostly contains trivial code from
>>> gossip, 
>>>
>>> the rest is rewritten by me or some collabora workers who
>>> are 100% OK to relicence, so it shouldn't be a problem to
>>> relicence libempathy to LGPL. libempathy-gtk is more a problem
>>> since lots of non-trivial code is written by Gossip developers
>>> who doesn't seems to agree to relicence to LGPL...
>>
>> I'm getting slightly tired of you Xavier, again.
>> 
>> What are you basing this on? I for one haven't been asked at all 
>> regarding this topic.
> 
> I asked Martyn's opinion long ago, I know he is not the only person
> to decide but he wasn't for the relicencing.

Rob basically summed it up perfectly.

I have to say, I agree with Mikael, this is just not true. Empathy looks
EXACTLY like Gossip for the most part, most of the widgets have taken
years to write. To say that the code you use is trivial is insulting.
Mikael, Richard and I (not to forget the countless others supplying
patches) have spent a lot of time writing these widgets and the
supporting library (libgossip). All you have done is made a few
improvements and put them them on top of another backend.

I wouldn't re-license it mostly because of the way you have been with us
Xavier. There is a way of treating people and I think you would have got
more from us if you had remembered that.

I am happy that you have Empathy Xavier, I wish you every success.

As for the adding it to GNOME. I would say no for the time being. Not
because I am against Empathy in any way - in fact I welcome it (it is
using widgets I wrote :), but I don't think it is mature enough. I
definitely wouldn't add a library which didn't have reasonable
documentation. I see no reason why this can't be added next year if it
is ready.

-- 
Regards,
Martyn