On Mon, 2004-08-09 at 06:42 -0400, Daniel Veillard wrote: > - (potential) requirement of C#/Mono The current licensing state for Mono is even more problematic than Evolution, since it has been confirmed that wanting to be able to make proprietary derivates _is_ intentional. > are generic enough that other applications can use them too, I think > integrating Evolution as part of the GNOME release will be an excellent idea, > but this is just a one person opinion. Technically, yes. Evolution is an excelent GUI MUA and integration with the desktop rocks on all technical layers. But my hope is that these are not the only parts one looks at. Several years ago, a company even contributed to Linux (Calders) and look where they are now! Not withstanding how clean a slate Novell want's to show the world (freeing a lot of proprietary code) it's very easy for a company to 'pull an SCO' when on soaring death, specially when it actually becomes a litigation copany (such as SCO is now). It would be very bad if a developer of Free Software become impossibilitated to work on what he himself wrote. Rui -- + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...? Please AVOID sending me WORD, EXCEL or POWERPOINT attachments. See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part