Last attempt at reconciliation

[Michael Häckel]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Tuesday 17 September 2002 14:34, Don Sanders wrote:
>
> I be allowed to fork KMail and begin work on KMail2 a mail client
> largely based on KMail but with the intention of making radical
> fundamental changes to the core architecture as I describe in
> my "Stuff I'm working on" mail.

Since KMail is licenced under the GPL everybody including you is allowed to 
fork it. I thought, you have started with that already, but somehow you came 
back to the HEAD branch again. I still don't know if the intention of your 
branch actually is to merge again later or to keep your version a fork.

> Would that be acceptable?

I of course can't prevent you from doing that as you have the right to do it.

If it's a wise decision to fork KMail is of course a different question.

> This would be somewhat similar to what my predecessor Stefan Taferner
> attempted.

Right. Stefan Taferners approach failed, but you are free to try again of 
course.

> An example of where KMail and KMail2 would differ is that KMail would
> take the more conservative approach of embedding components like
> KOrganizer in it, while KMail2 would take the more radical approach of
> making a component out of KMail and embedding that KMail component in
> other applications.

On this specific issue I also wouldn't have a problem with embedding KMail in 
Kaplan. Marc and I discussed this with Cornelius already. However definitely 
_after_ KDE 3.1. On some other issues like your zero copy parsing I still 
don't share your opinion.

Do you now actually agree that I am the maintainer of the version of KMail in 
CVS/HEAD in the kdenetwork module or will this problem come up again in a few 
weeks?

Regards,
Michael Häckel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE9hzl4e9KEPyN2R8URApU+AJ9uP8p6uLGzzmGJxuYvTao7gjMrvwCfaHVD
UOjnXV7+CQiGiZshSXTcyYw=
=WiN+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----