Messages

1

Software / A step ahead (Mail now integrated in KDE-Pim/Pi)

« on: July 21, 2004, 06:42:59 am »

As stated earlier, with all the hassles about licensing, zautrux removed it from the site.  Once they get all the &$%#@&%$# solved so no one gets their p****** in wad again, hopefully it will surface.

Nice language.

And yes, I hate this whining, ego, misunderstanding crap, especially when it comes out that the biggest problems were due to most upset person not even reading the thread!  AND it stops work on the most powerful program that I have had the fortune to use on my Zaurus.

Well, it seems that you had a little bit missunderstood, but its yours. Zautrix must reorganize his source code not for the opie developers. But for the binaries of openssl and so on. And THIS guys aren't real lucky about if there someone isn't respecting their licence where you have put their sources into the build tree not just binaries. And openssl as a security layer is realy a problem if someone putting just binaries. Words beside: You should never trust a security binary where you don't get the sources it is build from.

And even if you didn't read the last responses: We'll (zautrix and opie) try to setup a system where both  sides are winning. And I think that zautrix/MicroMail will just win when someone is knowing about libetpan (the heart of this mailsoftware) and maintaining it for PDA platform - the first versions we had were not usable on ARM/XSCALE platforms.

You should ever respect this. You should respect that I had seen that there was a big missunderstanding (outside this thread) - you should respect that zautrix said that a cooperation would be a little better for both sides. He can not give the support as single person like a team. But we/I will integrate KDEPIM stuff in OUR buildsystem so YOU will get a real maintained mailer. Whats going wrong? Whats your problem? It cost a little bit time - so what? Btw.: the biggest missunderstanding results due a statement of a guy not knowing enough, not just thinking before writing. It seems that you didn't understood the last postings, too.

@zautrix: Why did you close your downloads? If it would be for OPIE - there where never a problem with that from our side. But you should put the sources of libetpan and openssl into the download area  . And reopen it meanwhile

Ciao

Alwin

2

Software / A step ahead (Mail now integrated in KDE-Pim/Pi)

« on: July 20, 2004, 12:38:07 pm »

(do you agree on the name KOpieMail for the KDE-Pim/Pi part of Opiemail?)

Nomen est omen  real, its your name of the game.

I think the best solution would be, that we use the same source code.
That means, that I do the integration of OpieMail in KDE-Pim/Pi again
and use everywhere where I change integration Opie - KDE-Pim/Pi a
#ifdef USE_IN_KDEPIM_ENVIRONMENT
// KDE-Pim/Pi specific code
#else
// Opie specific code
#endif

I think the most differences will be the gui. on backend side (aka libmailwrapper) should not such a lot of OPIE based stuff. So I think this should just happen in a few files? I think it can be resolved via includes. (I don't know the exact differences, but it should be mostly inside the settings-dialogs - them are strong OPIE-based)

And of course not the next two days  There is a live beside OPIE and KDEPIM  

Details could be done via email I think.

CU

Alwin

3

Software / A step ahead (Mail now integrated in KDE-Pim/Pi)

« on: July 20, 2004, 11:32:47 am »

Sorry, I didn't telling lies about you.

I had read that. And yes - I should respect that you wrote thanks. Call it missunderstanding. ok?

So, I read the answer "no one is maintaining opie-mail" just now. not earlier. (I had a lot of other stuff to do last two months)

So: this answer is wrong. More than wrong. And it was not giving by a opie-member. So: opiemail IS maintained. It is one of the base-applications of opie. It must developed. It must get the NNTP interface finished. It must get more stable. There is a lot to do.

I think now, this was the missunderstanding (I hadn't time reading the mailinglist for a while - thats why).

About GPL and two-way help I had wrote enough, enough about words and spirit.

ok, so, let us cooling down, sorry, if you had the feeling I just wanted to piss you 'cause you use opiemail for your stuff without asking. Of course you can do that. Ok?

but real: we helped you - please help us. ok?

Alwin

edit and hint: authors of opie software are mostly written on opie.handhelds.org.

4

Software / A step ahead (Mail now integrated in KDE-Pim/Pi)

« on: July 20, 2004, 11:19:37 am »

argh.
ones again:
of course it isn't required. of course gpl doesn't tell that someone MUST give something back.

All I say is that I think it is more than bad style using software of other and don't giving back anything. A big part of development time for opie-mail was generating fixes and hints for the libetpan. THIS is good style. There are words of a licence. And there is a spirit of licence. The words are this one-way. The spirit of OpenSource is that the origins will getting some back which will help all.

I have no problems to share my stuff. But I get a problem to myself when something interpret it that way that he can just take it but not giving back something.

So what? Everybody is angry about this words. But no one tells me why it should impossible that zaurix will give back his ideas. WE had helped HIM. Why is it such a arrogance to await that he will help US eg ME? Can someone tell me?

I'd never said (and I'll not) that it is a bad idea to make a clone of opie-mail for non-opie systems. Ok, it will lose some nice features meanwhile implemented but its yours.

Yes. No one MUST give something back. But opensource lives from the system that everybody is using something is giving something back. And if someone just taking and using it and modifying it and fix it and don't send back anything - this is just a kind of egoism. this a kind of one-way where one part of development give to much more than getting back. Yes. You're right. There is nothing in GPL about it. But this is just bad style. And I'll say it again.

May be that my first posting was a little bit strong. But I was realy angry about that circumstance that I had never seen any feedback. And it is real interesting - all of you are participating of this software. Most of you like it. But the author of the software is the bad guy 'cause he asked why he don't get anything on support. At this moment I asking myself why I don't make commercial software.

cu
Alwin
p.s.: zautrix, real, I had read that you fixed something in smtp-code. It would be real nice when I get some information about.

5

Software / A step ahead (Mail now integrated in KDE-Pim/Pi)

« on: July 20, 2004, 07:16:33 am »

I have to agree!
I still see appeals for help and asking to consolidate efforts, but when something really great like KDEPim/Pi comes along, it is attacked by the developers!!!!!!!

Wront, truely wrong. Nobody is attacked 'cause he used stuff written by me. But you wrote in your post some of the reasons I've got pissed: Everybody uses our stuff - thats fine. But at this moment we ask for support to us - silence. just silence. I had spent a lot of time writing this stuff. I had asked for getting support writing the email client. Silence.

But for taking it, removing one of the base concepts, fixing some standard bugs - this time exists. But not the time sending patches. Not the time saying "well, there is this and this problem I would do it this way..." Nade. Niente. Nitschewo.

And sorry. At this moment I have all rights getting sicked. The one and only difference I can see between opie-mail and this mail-clone is the interface. Up to this moment I don't get any direct feedback what the changes are.

And hell: May be its great, but guy, don't forget: other had written this software. And not all of them are lucky about that someone is getting the honors not had written the stuff. He isn't attacked. I had asked just a few   - direct - questions. Up to this moment I didn't get any answer. I didn't get - I say it again - any patch. Nor bug reports. in german: NIX. He just tooked it and presented it as his own stuff.

And - splitting resources that way isn't good. So why it is inpossible that he asked "i want to use opie-mail for not opie-based systems. Hint, I take your frontend, remove opie stuff. The mail stuff we will develope as team in future"

Do you have an idea why we had tried to split interface and base mail-stuff? exactly for such! But everybody thinks he must make it own. Sorry. Thats brainfucked. As he had asked such - no problem. Why should exists a problem when making cross development and support.

But just taking it "tnx - bye" isn't good style. I don't know the english word and I have not time looking for a translations - but I call such "Profilierungssucht".

Bye
Alwin
just waiting that some patches/hints/infos comes back.

6

Software / A step ahead (Mail now integrated in KDE-Pim/Pi)

« on: July 16, 2004, 11:20:51 am »

I removed no licence message or about dialog in OpieMail.
There was none.
I did not change ANY headers of the sources.

As opie-mail is part of opie which is under GPL it is under GPL, too.
there is a licence file within the opie source tree (LICENCE.GPL).

Put your stuff depending on OPIE software under GPL, too.

As I wrote, I wrote an email to opie-devel already some days ago.

Ok, then I had not seen it. My failure.

To the other guys (and you, too):
Well, I had worked 5 month 4 hours every day on opiemail. I had wished, that someone will help. I know there are a lot of bugs must getting fixed. Thats why I'll never understand that guys using my work aren't able to send patches, fixes and so on back. At this moment I'm feeling real sicked. That is the point I can not understand why resources are splitted that way.

And it is a job. I'll make it on goodwill, of course, but it is a job. And someone using it in them own projects is able to send back something. Than it is shared development in the idea of an open community. But taking it and not sending back something to the origin is participating. Nothing else. The hint that kmicromail is based on opie-mail (not just the ideas, most code is from opiemail) I had found just on this thread. But when I reuse software from others - I'll put a link to that software direct into my documentation. The gpl request such - and I think it is a must be not depending on gpl that I tell who has made the base. So like I tell that opiemail (and kmicromail, too) is using libetpan. Did you gave feedback back to the etpan-authors?

Once again - may be there are reasons for a mail client using the design of opie-mail but not using opie. It isn't a problem. The problem is in which way it was done. Our resources aren't the best. So I think it should be self-evident that someone using MY resources and spare time work send back fixes, patches, ideas and so on.

btw.: removing opie support is meanwhile the same like loosing some nice features. But this isn't real my problem.

Alwin

7

Software / A step ahead (Mail now integrated in KDE-Pim/Pi)

« on: July 16, 2004, 10:17:19 am »

holy shit.

well, I'll never understand why guys splitting programmers resources in this way.

There are reasons why opie-mail written by me is integrated into OPIE itself. This is one point. But the next and bigger point: You wrote that you did some enhancements to it. Which? Why? Why not giving back to the authors of opie-mail (eg, me) what you did? Why do you just participating on MY job but not giving back something?

Then some others, you broke the licence some points:
1. you put openssl as binary into your cvs. Read the OPENSSL licence carefully - you make a link to the sources.
2. You don't have any licence model - but opie-mail is GPL. It means - you must put every software depending on it under GPL, too! Do it or I'll get real angry.
3. You don't have any changelog about differences to opie-mail - read the GPL and the licence.
4. You must put sources at the same place like the binary - read the GPL again. Not CVS, but generate a source-archiv and put it at the same place the binary resides.

May be, that it would a ... nice idea having some mailclients not depending on opie. but opiemail is the mailer of the OPIE system. And as it is written under GPL you have to respect something. And not depending on GPL you should respect that it would be nice when you inform the developers of a software that you'll reuse this software and cancel some of their ideas, read the GPL about what it says about splitting software and inform about the base software - i didn't found anything in your documentation about opie-mail. This isn't a wish, it is a must be of the GPL.

Alwin
a little bit sicked.

8

Angstrom & OpenZaurus / OpieMail3 on OZ3.3.6pre1 - 5500

« on: February 26, 2004, 06:10:49 pm »

hm. no I have no longer an idea. On all other devices it was enough.
did you installed libssl (for tls/ssl support)?

Alwin

9

Angstrom & OpenZaurus / OpieMail3 on OZ3.3.6pre1 - 5500

« on: February 24, 2004, 01:02:04 pm »

Please install libopiedb2 - we did forget append the deps for that librarie.
Means: due technical reasons opie-mail requires libopiepim2 and libopiedb2 (thats why we can not release it for opie 103 anymore) but than opiemail from unstable feed should work.

Sorry
Alwin

10

Angstrom & OpenZaurus / OpieMail3 on OZ3.3.6pre1 - 5500

« on: February 18, 2004, 10:41:26 am »

Ok,

since today a gcc3 build of opiemail3 is released in
http://opie.handhelds.org/feed/openzaurus/.../unstable-gcc3/

this one should work with OZ3.3.6pre1 - 5500.

Please install all required stuff, (libetpan, libmailwrapper and opiemail) otherwise it will not work.

Hope that helps for your problems

Alwin

11

Angstrom & OpenZaurus / OpieMail3 on OZ3.3.6pre1 - 5500

« on: February 18, 2004, 05:50:36 am »

We will setup as soon as possible packages for the 3.3 OZ, but meanwhile:

open console, type: export LD_BIND_NOW=1
opiemail

Hopefully you will get information which library is missing.
Did you install libetpan and libmailwrapper ?

Both are required.

Alwin