4 ms·

Sure, but the big thing is the "serious" part. We're basically talking about the patch paradox[1]. At any point in time, someone could have stepped up and mad

Sure, but the big thing is the "serious" part. We're basically talking about the patch paradox[1]. At any point in time, someone could have stepped up and made it known they were willing to do the necessary work to move off XUL. But without a similar commitment from upstream to accept a future involving a mail client built on web standard tech, it would be a wasted effort. Heck, Nylas even built their own such email client, relicensed it to a compatible license (GPL -> MIT), reached out to say, "please use this" and ask how they could help, and still nothing happened. 1. https://www.colbyrussell.com/2017/08/06/contributors-dilemma.html https://www.colbyrussell.com/2017/08/06/contributors-dilemma...

nirv 9y ago
There're many decent web-based proprietary mail solutions, and I was really excited once Nylas Mail showed up, even though it's Electron-based. And then instantly disappointed by its license. Later, I was considering switching to Nylas Mail when they re-licensed their open-source client, but turned out by "please use this" they still require you to opt-in with Nylas Identity tied to Nylas Cloud[1] They could only help replace free (from mail vendors) Thunderbird, playing by the rules of the Thunderbird. [1] https://github.com/nylas/nylas-mail/issues/3484 https://github.com/nylas/nylas-mail/issues/3484
- carussell 9y ago
  > but turned out by "please use this" they still require you to opt-in with Nylas Identity tied to Nylas Cloud We're talking about Thunderbird development. When I wrote that they changed to a compatible license and reached out to say "please use this", that's not referring to their attempt to get users. That's a reference to their attempt to donate their code and energy towards improving Thunderbird. > They could only help replace free (from mail vendors) Thunderbird, playing by the rules of the Thunderbird. Huh?
  - nirv 9y ago
    > That's a reference to their [Nylos]* attempt to donate their code and energy towards improving Thunderbird. (*My edit in brackets) You meant towards improving Nylas Mail, not Thunderbird? If not, I don't get any sense in this argument, it sounds like Nylas was reaching out Mozilla to replace Thunderbird with their re-licensed Nylas Mail. I'm not sure that ever happened (and I'm not sure GPL is a totally suitable license for Mozilla Foundation[1]). If you made a typo and meant "Nylas Mail", then I get your argument about development, but I see how community (me included) would be reluctant to make any contributions into a not entirely free product without forking. > Huh? Simply put, I'm fully agree that upstream Thunderbird could clearly indicate their will to move off Gecko to stimulate code contributions from community. I see how it might work out for the already popular, long time-tested, free Thunderbird, but I don't believe Nylos Mail is the same case here. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Public_License https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Public_License
    - carussell 9y ago
      > My edit in brackets) You meant towards improving Nylas Mail, not Thunderbird? No. What I wrote is what I meant. > it sounds like Nylas was reaching out Mozilla to replace Thunderbird with their re-licensed Nylas Mail Yes. (But not "replace", necessarily. Replace parts. Merge. Improve.) > I'm not sure that ever happened Uh, okay? If you hadn't heard that before, that's... fine. But, I mean, now you have. And I don't know what else to say. > I'm not sure GPL is a totally suitable license for Mozilla Foundation You're right; it's not. Thunderbird is MPL. They can't accept GPL contributions and continue to make releases available under MPL. That's why I specifically mentioned how Nylas relicensed their code to one that is compatible (MIT). > I'm fully agree that upstream Thunderbird could clearly indicate their will to move off Gecko I didn't say move off Gecko. I said dropping XUL. Moving off Gecko is almost definitely not in plans for the short term, and probably not even in the long term. This conversation has been excruciating.
      - nirv 9y ago
        > Nylas relicensed their code to one that is compatible (MIT) I was sure it's GPL, I missed that point. > Uh, okay? If you hadn't heard that before, that's... fine. > But, I mean, now you have. And I don't know what else to say. > This conversation has been excruciating. LOL, too much drama for the product below the radar. I can't even google anything about this proposal.

nirv 9y ago

There're many decent web-based proprietary mail solutions, and I was really excited once Nylas Mail showed up, even though it's Electron-based. And then instantly disappointed by its license. Later, I was considering switching to Nylas Mail when they re-licensed their open-source client, but turned out by "please use this" they still require you to opt-in with Nylas Identity tied to Nylas Cloud[1] They could only help replace free (from mail vendors) Thunderbird, playing by the rules of the Thunderbird. [1] https://github.com/nylas/nylas-mail/issues/3484 https://github.com/nylas/nylas-mail/issues/3484

carussell 9y ago
> but turned out by "please use this" they still require you to opt-in with Nylas Identity tied to Nylas Cloud We're talking about Thunderbird development. When I wrote that they changed to a compatible license and reached out to say "please use this", that's not referring to their attempt to get users. That's a reference to their attempt to donate their code and energy towards improving Thunderbird. > They could only help replace free (from mail vendors) Thunderbird, playing by the rules of the Thunderbird. Huh?
- nirv 9y ago
  > That's a reference to their [Nylos]* attempt to donate their code and energy towards improving Thunderbird. (*My edit in brackets) You meant towards improving Nylas Mail, not Thunderbird? If not, I don't get any sense in this argument, it sounds like Nylas was reaching out Mozilla to replace Thunderbird with their re-licensed Nylas Mail. I'm not sure that ever happened (and I'm not sure GPL is a totally suitable license for Mozilla Foundation[1]). If you made a typo and meant "Nylas Mail", then I get your argument about development, but I see how community (me included) would be reluctant to make any contributions into a not entirely free product without forking. > Huh? Simply put, I'm fully agree that upstream Thunderbird could clearly indicate their will to move off Gecko to stimulate code contributions from community. I see how it might work out for the already popular, long time-tested, free Thunderbird, but I don't believe Nylos Mail is the same case here. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Public_License https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Public_License
  - carussell 9y ago
    > My edit in brackets) You meant towards improving Nylas Mail, not Thunderbird? No. What I wrote is what I meant. > it sounds like Nylas was reaching out Mozilla to replace Thunderbird with their re-licensed Nylas Mail Yes. (But not "replace", necessarily. Replace parts. Merge. Improve.) > I'm not sure that ever happened Uh, okay? If you hadn't heard that before, that's... fine. But, I mean, now you have. And I don't know what else to say. > I'm not sure GPL is a totally suitable license for Mozilla Foundation You're right; it's not. Thunderbird is MPL. They can't accept GPL contributions and continue to make releases available under MPL. That's why I specifically mentioned how Nylas relicensed their code to one that is compatible (MIT). > I'm fully agree that upstream Thunderbird could clearly indicate their will to move off Gecko I didn't say move off Gecko. I said dropping XUL. Moving off Gecko is almost definitely not in plans for the short term, and probably not even in the long term. This conversation has been excruciating.
    - nirv 9y ago
      > Nylas relicensed their code to one that is compatible (MIT) I was sure it's GPL, I missed that point. > Uh, okay? If you hadn't heard that before, that's... fine. > But, I mean, now you have. And I don't know what else to say. > This conversation has been excruciating. LOL, too much drama for the product below the radar. I can't even google anything about this proposal.