Fwd: Re: KDevelop

[Ralf Nolden]

a wrote:
> 
> Hi!
> 
> Catalin ask me to keep his answer private, but I think the KDevelop-Team
> should know what's going on. :-), but please don't forward this to public
> mailinglist's.
;-) Fine. Thanks for the info.
> 
> Ok, as I understand it, most of us want to work on the current codebase and
> don't want to write/design a new IDE in "coorperation" with a company. If
> everybody agree on this decision I will write an "offical" statement to Catalin
> and to our mailinglist kdevelop at barney on tuesday.
I agree on working in the "old" team and continue real free work ;-)

Just make it seem friendly and the show is over, like John already said.
I only hope that I don't get mails from users of the COBOL version using
my email adress of the documentation to ask me usability questions ;-(

For other things my recommendations are, like John's:
- other name
- same copyright in all codefiles and documentation of their version
- a licensing declaration that makes clear it is a modified version and
doesn't fall under our responsibility concerning code and documentation
- a "Based on the KDevelop IDE for Unix Systems, 1.0, available at
www.kdevelop.org" or something like this.

> P.S Thanks to Ralf for forwarding Shawn Gordon's mail.
;-)
> P.P.S. I didn't get an email from mosfet. The only mail I got was "Get paid to
> work on KDevelop" but this was posted on kde-devel some weeks ago.
That was the mail I also meant in my post as I read that as well and we
discussed that on the last chat I was with in June or so; so this thing
seems to be going on quite long and that may explain why they are under
time-pressure somehow. Their compiler may be ready but they seem to need
the IDE.

The thing turned out as I suspected. It's a sad thing after all, but we
can't prevent what's coming, so let us be friendly in the future but
don't forget our rights. 

Ralf