On Sep 24, 2011 2:23 PM, "Tristan Santore" < [email protected]> wrote: > > On Sep 24, 2011 1:07 PM, "Tristan Santore" > > <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >> On 24/09/11 15:43, Mike McGrath wrote: > >>> On Fri, 23 Sep 2011, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > >>> > >>>> Greetings. > >>>> > >>>> I finally sat down and poked around with the current version of zarafa > >>>> we have setup (7.0.0). > >>>> > >>>> Some observations: > >>>> > >>>> * It seems more responsive and nicer than the 6.x versions were. > >>>> > >>>> * There doesn't seem to be a way to disable features and just show the > >>>> calendar that I can figure out. The email part is always there. ;( > >>>> However, unless we have it set to send incoming emails there, it > >>>> works fine for just sending calendar invites and the like. > >>>> > >>>> * The ical / caldav feeds seem to be there and working. Took a bit to > >>>> find them, but they do work. > >>>> > >>>> * We can't enable z-push as it's non free, so thats no push for a bunch > >>>> of mobile devices. > >>>> > >>>> * Calendars are per user. There is a group calendar feature, but it > >>>> seems to not be available in the free version. > >>>> > >>>> So, I am thinking that if we don't want to offer mail hosting, zarafa > >>>> isn't going to be something we want to support/deploy. > >>>> > >>>> The only one still getting email into it is Mike. > >>>> I don't know if other folks are using the calendar or not, but we > >>>> should check that. > >>>> > >>>> Any further thoughts or conclusions? Or should we set a sunset date? > >>>> > >>> > >>> I demand that Fedora continue to offer and support a mailing solution.... > >>> just of me ;-) > >>> > >>> +1 to the sunset. Let me know when and I'll make arrangements to get my > >>> mail sent back to my normal account. > >>> > >>> -Mike > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> infrastructure mailing list > >>> [email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]> > >>> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure > >> How about hosting zarafa elsewhere ? In a sane legal zone like the EU! > >> > >> As long as Fedora doesn't itself host this, its not taking part in > >> contributory infringement, I would think. > >> > >> Regards, > >> > >> Tristan > >> > >> -- > >> Tristan Santore BSc MBCS > >> TS4523-RIPE > >> Network and Infrastructure Operations > >> InterNexusConnect > >> Mobile +44-78-55069812 > >> [email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]> > >> > >> Former Thawte Notary > >> (Please note: Thawte has closed its WoT programme down, > >> and I am therefore no longer able to accredit trust) > >> > >> For Fedora related issues, please email me at: > >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> infrastructure mailing list > >> [email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]> > >> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > infrastructure mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
> > On 24/09/11 19:11, brett lentz wrote: > > Even if that's technically legal, it violates the spirit of what Fedora > > is all about. > > > > ---Brett. > > > Using foss service providers does not violate what we are about, and > besides, if that was the case then we should also ban our users from > mentioning rpmfusion in the help channel, which is preposterous. This is a straw man and has nothing to do with what I said. > Just because the United States has decided to have patents on software, > which nobody in Fedora agrees with, nor Red Hat for that matter, then > you can't ask Europe to enforce such stupidity. I don't see how that's relevant or has anything to do with what I said. > What you are saying is, > that we cant basically add European service providers to the list of US > based service providers we already use. No. That is not at all what I said. I said that gaining access to otherwise non-free software through the use of a technicality is not the Fedora way. > Of course, external providers of > free services we use to market Fedora, such as facebook, have also faced > patent infringement claims. Also, we would not be hosting it ourselves, > we do not violate the principal of having only freely usable software in > the distribution. The distribution has nothing to do with obtaining > services from a third-party. > Yes. I understood your point the first time. I disagree with you that this is an appropriate option. > Of course,, if there was a better option, which we can mass-roll out to > allow everyone to work more efficiently together, then great, but people > have been banging on about a product we need, and nothing has fit the bill. Correction: Nothing *yet* has fit the bill. > > And, as a contributor, Id like to have the ability to gain access to > such collaboration systems, it should be for everyone, not just a select > few. > You aren't the only one with this desire. I, and many others share it. But I don't believe it's a good idea to sacrifice our principles and start using technicalities just to gain access to a particular piece of software. Just because something is technically possible doesn't make it a good solution. > Regards, > > Tristan > ---Brett. > -- > Tristan Santore BSc MBCS > TS4523-RIPE > Network and Infrastructure Operations > InterNexusConnect > Mobile +44-78-55069812 > [email protected] > > Former Thawte Notary > (Please note: Thawte has closed its WoT programme down, > and I am therefore no longer able to accredit trust) > > For Fedora related issues, please email me at: > [email protected] > _______________________________________________ > infrastructure mailing list > [email protected] > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
_______________________________________________ infrastructure mailing list [email protected] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
