[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kmail-devel
Subject:    Re: PATCH: Asynchronous filtering
From:       Ingo =?iso-8859-1?q?Kl=F6cker?= <kloecker () kde ! org>
Date:       2003-10-29 0:15:24
[Download RAW message or body]

[Attachment #2 (multipart/signed)]


On Tuesday 28 October 2003 10:37, Marc Mutz wrote:
> On Tuesday 28 October 2003 10:10, Andreas Gungl wrote:
> <snip>
>
> > Unfortunatly there is one problem left -
> > pure ideas don't create software automatically. You have to proof
> > that your ideas are right, and you can do that only by writing code
> > yourself or letting others implement your ideas.
>
> <snip>
>
> I might soon be in a position where I _can_ do that. Really. Just
> need to settle into my new job and see how much I can do for KMail
> then.
>
> However, I can almost surely tell you that I will have to fight for
> good code to go in just as I fight bad code to keep out.

Man, you are becoming paranoid (maybe because you insist on telling 
everyone that Bielefeld actually exists ;-) ). Did I ever veto against 
any of your commits? I don't think so.

> Just look at Ingo's comments about refactoring being useless

Thanks for repeatedly citing me out-of-context and for making private 
disputes public. :-(
I wrote (the readers of this mailing list won't remember because I wrote 
this in a private (!) mail exchange between several PIM developers):
"BTW, why didn't you help with the merge [of the kroupware_branch] 
instead of beautifying/refactoring ObjectTreeParser et al.? Your 
refactoring commits were IMO the most useless commits that were made in 
the last few weeks. That could have really waited until after KDE 3.2."

I never said that refactoring is useless per se. It just wasn't the 
right time for refactoring in my opinion.

> and gpgme being GPL....

So it's bad that I think ahead? KMail is not the only application that 
would benefit from a KDE abstraction of gpgme which therefore of course 
should become part of kdelibs. But currently GPL'd libs are not allowed 
in kdelibs. I didn't make this rule and I'm not even sure that I like 
it (because I didn't consider all the pros and cons yet). I just 
pointed out that therefore the GPL license of gpgme could be a problem 
in the future.

> BTW, the same goes for othe KDE areas: Using gsasl (also GPL) instead
> of rolling our own (buggy) sasl implementation. Has anyone gotten
> DIGEST-MD5 to work in any protocol recently? Simon even offered to
> help us make use of gsasl, yet we^WI still have to debug kdesasl.

First time I hear about this, so I can't comment on this.

> And to make the round complete: We use OpenSSL, which is
> GPL-incompatible. In a way, that makes us (as in KDE) violate the
> GPL, with the result that if anyone starts enforcing the GPL terms on
> us, we may lose the right to use the GPL. Now, there is gnutls, which
> is even LGPL. Let's wait to see if the KSSL guys accept a KDE4 w/o
> openssl? I bet they won't. We had endless discussions with George
> about why Werner rolled his own S/MIME implementation for Aegypten
> instead of using KSSL. The simple answer is and ever was: Because
> KSSL is illegal. But that was ignored. :-(

I agree that this might be a problem ("might" because I'm no lawyer so 
I'm not qualified to comment on this). But you are writing to the wrong 
mailing list, Marc.

Regards,
Ingo

[Attachment #5 (application/pgp-signature)]

_______________________________________________
KMail Developers mailing list
kmail@mail.kde.org
http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kmail

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]