On Jan 11, 2011, at 5:51 PM, Christopher Forsythe wrote: > The problem is that the work that was done didn't produce anything. > The whole thing was supposed to be a big wrapper around objc > libraries, which turned into a "oh hey let's just use this other linux > library!" thing. >
I think that's unfair. Reimplementing the protocols themselves is not a good use of human resources, and this wasn't - as far as I recall - an intention of the project. -Evan > Ofri and you did put in a lot of work, but in the end it wasn't a lot > of work that produced very much in a way of making the project viable, > which is essentially why the project failed. > > > > On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 5:43 PM, David Smith <[email protected]> wrote: >> That's not true. Ofri (and to a lesser extent me) wrote quite a bit of >> code, and had some interesting stuff working. The project stopped >> because Ofri burned out from working too hard on it for a whole year. >> >> David >> >> On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 3:39 PM, Christopher Forsythe <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> Chatkit was indeed a separate short lived project. Essentially it >>> started off with a lot of planning, and then some people wanted to >>> depend on pre-existing libraries. Not a lot of real work was done, >>> which is why the project eventually stopped. >>> >>> Chris >>> >>> On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 5:32 PM, BJ Homer <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> </lurk> >>>> While we're talking about crazy ideas, I know there was a project called >>>> ChatKit a while ago. As I understood it, it was essentially going to >>>> implement the various IM protocols in Obj-C and provide a simple Obj-C API >>>> for them. (I believe Adium developers were involved in it, so please >>>> correct >>>> me if I'm wrong.) If that's the case… well, would anyone have interest in >>>> resurrecting that project? If libpurple is the dependency dependency that >>>> prohibits inclusion in the Mac App Store, is it worth investigating >>>> replacing it? >>>> I acknowledge that this wouldn't be a quick solution; petitioning Apple to >>>> make the App Store licensing terms GPL-compatible in the meantime is not a >>>> bad option. But if that doesn't happen… well, how badly do people want >>>> Adium >>>> to be on the Mac App Store? If a framework like ChatKit were the only >>>> option, is there enough interest in the Mac App Store to explore that >>>> option >>>> again? >>>> I'd be willing to help. I've been needing a good open source project to >>>> work >>>> on for a while. >>>> -BJ >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Zachary West <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 18:08, Christopher Forsythe <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 5:03 PM, Stephen Holt <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Jan 11, 2011, at 2:59 PM, Christopher Forsythe wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Can any of the libraries be taken out of adium in order to reduce this >>>>>>>> number? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> libglib is the big one, and no - libpurple depends on libglib. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> That's fine, I'd just need to start preparing to find all of these >>>>>> people and making a list. >>>>>> >>>>>> Do we know what kind of permission we'd need to ask for? Is something >>>>>> like this adequate? "hey, we want make adium easier to download for >>>>>> users, and we have to do x, y, and z to do that. We need your >>>>>> permission in order to do that. Is it ok?" >>>>>> >>>>>> Is the intention to put Adium in the store for free or for sale? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> This isn't going to happen, there's a huge amount of people who have >>>>> contributed to the projects. If even only one of them isn't contactable or >>>>> reachable it's gone. We basically need to relicense a core set of GPL >>>>> libraries and that isn't going to happen. >>>>> It would be free. >>>>> I'm going to write a blogpost and hopefully have our users spam Apple with >>>>> complaints. Not much more we can do. >>>>> Zac >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >
