Re: Is beepcore-c still alive? What happened to Huston?

Jonas -

thanks for the information. So I guess the only remaining 'advantage' of 
beepcore-c is the license, in case someone wants to use it in a proprietary 
product.
I'm assuming that CodeFactory offers the roadrunner sources under another 
license for a fee (so that it can be used in a proprietary product), so 
probably you don't want to switch to an X11/Apache type of license, correct?

I'm not sure whether that is important to me at all, since I am writing Free 
Software. However, especially for a library, I do prefer an X11 license over 
a GPL license.

Regards,
Wolfgang

On Tuesday 18 February 2003 23:33, Jonas Borgström wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-02-18 at 20:19, Wolfgang Spraul wrote:
> > Well, I read several things:
> >
> > 1) beepcore-c has a X11 type of license (i.e. can be used in proprietary
> > products) whereas roadrunner has a GPL type of license (i.e. free
> > software only). beepcore-c is in the debian/unstable distribution whereas
> > roadrunner is not. Would it be a problem to create a debian package for
> > roadrunner? I don't think so.
>
> Hi,
>
> RoadRunner has no official debian packages in the debian unstable
> distribution but the RoadRunner tarballs contain a "debian" subdirectory
> so a simple "dpkg-buildpackage" is all that is needed to generate your
> own debian packages.
>
> > 2) beepcore-c is supposedly "light" (?) and has less dependencies than
> > roadrunner (libxml2?) I read that beepcore-c just hooks into a socket
> > whereas roadrunner manages the complete connection.
>
> RoadRunner depends on glib2 and libxml2 which both are highly portable
> and widely used libraries.
>
> If the libxml2 dependency really is an issue, it should be quite easy to
> rewrite RoadRunner to use the tiny glib2 xml-subset parser (GMarkup).
>
> What do you mean by "just hooks into a socket"?
> RoadRunner can create a new connection, or just use an existing socket.
>
> / Jonas
>
> > Please correct me if I'm wrong.
> >
> > As you can tell, I haven't started actually using the two libraries yet.
> > My current plan is to just start coding my project (a Calendar Access
> > Protocol server and cgi) and initially try both libraries, then make a
> > decision after a few days.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Wolfgang
> >
> > On Tuesday 18 February 2003 17:58, Marshall Rose wrote:
> > > > Hi everybody,
> > > >
> > > > I'm trying to device whether to use beepcore-c or roadrunner for an
> > > > upcoming project.
> > > > I found pros and cons, but I noticed that the last CVS commit in
> > > > beepcore-c happened on Sept 19 last year (bp_wrapper.h). Is anybody
> > > > still working on beepcore-c? Or is beepcore-c simply working well
> > > > enough that one can just use it? Is the BEEP protocol
> > > > sufficiently/completely implemented?
> > > >
> > > > Huston - are you still maintaining the project?
> > >
> > > hi. a couple of things:
> > >
> > > i think that huston is focusing more on the beepcore-java stuff these
> > > days...
> > >
> > > there's a lot of activity on roadrunner, and i don't think it makes a
> > > lot of sense for folks to try to maintain two open source beep
> > > implementations in C....
> > >
> > > so, while i haven't heard from huston in a while, i wouldn't be
> > > surprised to hear folks suggest that we close down beepcore-c...
> > >
> > > can someone make a compelling argument as to some feature that
> > > beepcore-c has that roadrunner doesn't? if so, then we should think
> > > about this further...
> > >
> > > thanks!
> > >
> > > /MTR
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> > This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
> > Welcome to geek heaven.
> > http://thinkgeek.com/sf
> > _______________________________________________
> > Beepcore-c-users mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/beepcore-c-users



-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf