All,The code in gui and Gorm is frozen in preparation for the release. Only critical fixes to existing functionality should go in at this point.I am attempting to stabilize Gorm and GUI for the release.Later, GJC--Gregory John Casamento___
Gnustep-dev m
On 2006-08-26 14:32:02 +0200 Gregory John Casamento
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The code in gui and Gorm is frozen in preparation for the release.
Only
critical fixes to existing functionality should go in at this point.
I am attempting to stabilize Gorm and GUI for the release.
On a side no
Chris,This would make a lot of sense although... I thought we already had a list like that here:https://savannah.gnu.org/task/?group_id=99It would be better to track this as a set of tasks so that the process is less ad-hoc.Later, GJC --Gregory John Casamento- Original Message From: Chr
On 2006-08-26 18:27:12 +0200 Gregory John Casamento
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This would make a lot of sense although... I thought we already
had a
list like that here:
https://savannah.gnu.org/task/?group_id=99
It would be better to track this as a set of tasks so that the
process is
le
On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 19:01:39 +0200, Chris Vetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
[...]
> However that brings me to another question that may look like
> flame-bait...
> Let's say there's a framework that implements one or more 'wanted'
> classes but are licensed under, say, BSDL. Would it be permissi
On 2006-08-26 11:01:39 -0600 Chris Vetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Let's say there's a framework that implements one or more 'wanted'
classes
but are licensed under, say, BSDL.
Would it be permissible to add those classes to GNUstep (since it's
LGPL) or
would those classes have to be 'handed
On 8/28/06, Adam Fedor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> And what if the author doesn't want to change the original license
> but adds a section that additionally puts the code under LGPL (that
> is, as a dual license) provided / as long as the code is used in GNUstep?
Yes, that would be much ea
On 2006-08-28 01:44:33 -0600 Chris B. Vetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I was asking because I got a couple of classes that are 'missing' in
GNUstep, that I'd like to 'hand over' to GNUstep directly, most of all
NSNetServices and I usually put everything under a dual BSD/(L)GPL and
I'm not very
Le 26 août 06 à 19:01, Chris Vetter a écrit :
On 2006-08-26 18:27:12 +0200 Gregory John Casamento
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This would make a lot of sense although... I thought we
already had a list like that here:
https://savannah.gnu.org/task/?group_id=99
It would be better to track t
On 2006-08-29 14:03:36 +0200 Quentin Mathé <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> May be the Summer of Code 2006 page which lists most of missing classes.
> There is a link on the wiki front page: mediawiki.gnustep.org/index.php/Summer_Of_Code_2006>
Check the history of that page ;-)
But that's not exac
10 matches
Mail list logo
