Re: [Phpgroupware-users] Anouncement: eGroupWare fork of phpGroupWare

[Dave Hall]

SI Reasoning <address@hidden> wrote:

> If my understanding is correct, the major issue between the two 
> camps has to 
> do with license preferences. 

The fork has do with more than licensing, but that is now all water
under the bridge.  As phpGroupWare is a GNU project, and so we use the
LGPL and GPL for our code.  This has always been the case.  

There are ways of including GPL compatiable code from external sources
in our codebase under certain circumstances as is being considered for
HTMLArea (which is covered by the modified BSD license).

> A possible solution could be to have a 
> phpgroupware plug-ins that could be created offsite but plugged 
> into a 
> phpgroupware module if an end-user so desires. This keeps 
> phpgroupware GPL 
> clean while also allowing end-users a choice to plug-in non-gpl 
> code. If my 
> understanding is correct, I believe that it is not incompatible 
> with the gpl 
> to add non-gpl plugins.
> 

It is against the GPL to link any non GPL compatiable code to GPL code.  

For more information on licensing please refer to:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html

Cheers

Dave

> On Friday 05 September 2003 01:10 pm, R B wrote:
> > G'day,
> >     It's good to have varieties but I hope
> > phpgroupware &  egroupware are not going to turn into
> > phpnuke/postnuke/evolution/etc with apps having
> > problem   working in each other. The developers are
> > having nightmares trying to write code to conform to
> > all of them (well at least the major forks anyway). To
> > the users, there are not much different between them.
> > Just bugs are slower at getting fixed due to scattered
> > of resources.
> >    I wish phpgroupware/egroupware will not have that
> > sort of problem.
> >    As a normal user, I would like to make a suggestion
> > (even it may seem stupid). Maybe I've been missing the
> > point but from what I've seen is that phpgroupware and
> > egroupware have two different business model.
> > Technically, the two are still the same - ie. the
> > underlying architecture is still the same - then why
> > not have a central group that coordinate the
> > developement of the core structure, much like the
> > Linux Kernel.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Robert Bui
> >
> >
> >
> >  --- SI Reasoning <address@hidden> wrote: > It
> > would be wonderful for those of us caught in the
> >
> > > crossfire if modules from
> > > both projects are drop in replaceable without issue
> > > (such as anglemail).
> > >
> > > Also, which modules where the primary interests of
> > > the egroupware developers?
> >
> > http://search.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Search
> > - Looking for more? Try the new Yahoo! Search
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Phpgroupware-users mailing list
> > address@hidden
> > http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/phpgroupware-users
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Phpgroupware-users mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/phpgroupware-users
>

dave.hall.vcf
Description: Card for <dave.hall@mbox.com.au>