Re: status of bbdb3 support in wl?

On Sun, 04 Sep 2016 03:43:31 -0600,
Michael Welle wrote:
> 
> Hello,
> 
> David Maus wrote:
> > 
> > On Sun, 04 Sep 2016 06:48:54 +0200,
> > Michael Welle wrote:
> > > 
> > > Hello,
> > > 
> > > Herbert J. Skuhra wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Ken Gunderson skrev:
> > > > > 
> > > > > Cool that wanderlust is seeing some developer love.  From what I've
> > > > > been able to surmise, however, Wanderlust still lacks ability to
> > > > > integrate with bbdbv3?
....

> > There are indeed some suboptimal design in the current BBDBv3 code
> > that make it hard to add support for other MUAs without modifying the
> > BBDB.
> yepp. I think that -and the lack of documentation for bbdb v3- is one
> of the reasons why there wasn't support for bbdb v3 in wl for years.

Which is sadly really out of character for emacs ;(

> > As far as I understand the BBDBv3 developement is aimed at the
> > integration of BBDB into Emacs core. I.e. contributions require a
> > copyright assignment with the FSF.
> I still haven't made my mind up about that copyright assignment. There
> are pros and cons. It surely put people off, but I have no idea if
> it has significant influence on the progress of the project.

Not a developer but from my trawls I would say, yes, this is a big
detractor that has a fair bit of influence.  So much so that we now
have the 'unlicense' being favored by some who refuse to sign FSF
paperwork as matter of principle.  And maybe more out of loathing of
RMS and his 'extremist hate all proprietary softwares philosophical
stances' than actual copyright.  There seems to be growing sentiment
that sees FSF and it's conservancy as 'litigous patent trolls'.

Not saying any of this reflects my opinions.  Maybe partly an artifact
of vast majority of Linux kernel devs doing so on big corp dime?
See, e.g. that big GPL License kerfuffle on LKML.

In any case, thankfully we have Melpa.

Best-- Ken