RE: [dsdp-mtj-dev] Possible MTJ Contribution

[<mika.hoikkala@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

You get my curiosity up. When you think that you can publish information
what you have.
And if that takes time we are also interested in documentation which
tells how it work (end user / use case perspective) if that is easier to
deliver than code.

Yes. Eclipse lisence is EPL and it would definitely be the best for your
contribution also.

Eclipse community is quite strict that it don't have any license
problems in Eclipse projects.

mho



>-----Original Message-----
>From: dsdp-mtj-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx 
>[mailto:dsdp-mtj-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of ext 
>Sebastian Sickelmann
>Sent: 03 August, 2006 16:31
>To: Mobile Tools for The Java Platform mailing list
>Subject: Re: [dsdp-mtj-dev] Possible MTJ Contribution
>
>Hi,
>
>Nice to hear that you think the same way. Fragmentation is one 
>of the biggest problems a developer faces, if he develops for 
>mobile Java devices. I think that we have found a better way 
>than "comment-based" pre-processor directives. We will see how 
>"perfect"
>it is when it goes public. I think that we could nearly reach 
>"perfection".
>
>I am very sorry that i cannot publish much more detail at this moment.
>For now I'm very
>happy with your response, and i can go to my management that 
>is responseable for the licensing, and brief them.
>
>I think that the prospects of success is high, because my 
>company is gettin very interested in open-source business 
>models over the last weeks.
>
>I think that i can achieve open-sourcing the core technologies 
>of our project.
>Is there any limitations in licensing-terms such as: "All must be GPL"?
>
>I think the global license for Eclipse Project is the EPL!? 
>Please correct me if i'm wrong.
>
>Kind regards
>Sebastian Sickelmann
><http://dict.leo.org/ende?lp=ende&p=/gQPU.&search=achieve>
><http://dict.leo.org/ende?lp=ende&p=/gQPU.&search=success>
>mika.hoikkala@xxxxxxxxx schrieb:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Nice to hear about you.
>>
>> We are definitely interested in to co-operate those areas 
>you mentioned.
>> Fragmentation especially is a problem in mobile space and we are not 
>> sure if we have even vision of "perfect" solution yet.
>>
>> So views how things should be solved, 
>contribution/implemtation of it 
>> are all welcome.
>>
>> Do you have something in your mind how to take next steps?
>>
>> Can you provide a bit more information what you have currently?
>>
>> mho
>>
>>   
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: dsdp-mtj-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx 
>>> [mailto:dsdp-mtj-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of ext 
>Sebastian 
>>> Sickelmann
>>> Sent: 03 August, 2006 14:39
>>> To: dsdp-mtj-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Subject: [dsdp-mtj-dev] Possible MTJ Contribution
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I am the CTO from Four2B GmbH (in Germany) and we are developing 
>>> JavaME-products in various fields (games, showrooms, 
>>> informationservices, etc). So we have first-hand expirence on the 
>>> difficulties which come along with porting Java applications to 
>>> various JavaMe Devices.
>>>
>>> Our first choice has been J2ME-Polish as our buildsystem 
>and Eclipse 
>>> as IDE. After using some refactoring functions we soon hit the hard 
>>> reality of JavaMe-Development. Most of the markup-code we used for 
>>> automatic builds was not usuable anymore.
>>> YES. Refactoring breaks your "preprocessor-spiked"-code.
>>>
>>> AspectJ and other AOP-Frameworks are in most cases to unhandy or 
>>> oversized to substitute the comment-based preprocessor-approach.
>>>
>>> We have started a project to fix this problem, in order to keep the 
>>> code more readable and refactorable.
>>>
>>> If there is any interesst in contributions on your side, we could 
>>> imagine to contribute to the following usecases:
>>>
>>> - Execute the application (at least taking part in the specification
>>> process)
>>> - Manage fragmentation (code contributions)
>>> - Localize the application (code contributions)
>>>
>>> We are not sure about the licence-type we should use (open, closed, 
>>> splitted).
>>> My personal point of view is that we should bring some development 
>>> force back to the eclipse-community.
>>>
>>> If there is any interesst in exchanging the "comment-style"
>>> preprocessor-approach with an alternative, i will ask our 
>management 
>>> to open-source our solution (including localization support).
>>>
>>> Hope to hear some positive response
>>>
>>> Kind regards
>>> Sebastian Sickelmann
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> dsdp-mtj-dev mailing list
>>> dsdp-mtj-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dsdp-mtj-dev
>>>
>>>     
>> _______________________________________________
>> dsdp-mtj-dev mailing list
>> dsdp-mtj-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dsdp-mtj-dev
>>   
>
>_______________________________________________
>dsdp-mtj-dev mailing list
>dsdp-mtj-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dsdp-mtj-dev
>