Hello All,

Would'nt it be a good idea to register for the google soc? It is a good way to attract developers and get things done quickly.

Cheers,
Krishna

Krishna wrote

Hello All, Would'nt it be a good idea to register for the google soc? It is a good way to attract developers and get things done quickly.

The lazarus and FPC teams are already doing this.
As soon as we know something, I assume we'll post some announcement.

Michael.

Michael Van Canneyt napisał(a):

BTW, are there any other Pascal/Delphi/FreePascal projects that one can apply to this year? I'd love to participate, yet I don't feel enough comfortable with my C/C++ skills :-).

Hello,

I think it is of decisive importance that we participate on Summer of Code.

I suggest that you add parts needed for 2.2 to it.

A new feature I propose is to add as a project on summer of code to create a port to PalmOS.

Kornel Kisielewicz wrote

BTW, are there any other Pascal/Delphi/FreePascal projects that one can apply to this year? I'd love to participate, yet I don't feel enough comfortable with my C/C++ skills :-).

I think you can also submit your own projects.

There will also be projects from Lazarus.

I suggest full Visual Form Inheritance in the Form Designer of Lazarus. This is a big stumbling block for using FPC and Lazarus for commercial applications.

Regards,
- Graeme -

Hi list,

How good is the unicode support? I would like to work on it.

Cheers,
Krishna

Krishna wrote:

We'll write an email to apply as mentoring organization tomorrow or the day after.

Florian Klaempfl napisał(a):

Krishna wrote: We'll write an email to apply as mentoring organization tomorrow or the day after.

Please keep us updated on that :-).

The application was rejected (without explanation).

Jonas

2006/4/27, Jonas Maebe :

The application was rejected (without explanation).

Maybe because this is not tax deductible for google, because this is not a tax-deductible-foundation.

I'm sure summer of code does not cost that much to google... they probably have huge returns from the gov. because of free foundations.

This is only a theory.

Regards.

Or because opensource world tends to be C-centric, or because FPC didn't make to the news a lot in USA, or because... we could go on for some time.

-Flávio

Or because opensource world tends to be C-centric, or because FPC didn't make to the news a lot in USA, or because... we could go on for some time.

This is beginning to show some similarities to the DMOZ (Google's open directory project) where several scandals surfaced along the way. Sites were turned down without motivation, and monitors (called editors there) were chosen at the whim of supervisors.

John

Why not simply ask for the reason of rejection before speculations go wild?

Marc

Speculation and rumor are more fun

2006/4/27, Paul Davidson :

Speculation and rumor are more fun

Indeed. There will be no more fun when we know. We might even be frustrated. :)

PS: Talking about fun, I dont know if many of you have seen the Firefox Flick 'Wheee!'. If you want to laught a bit before the week-end. mov: http://www.firefoxflicks.com/flick/?id=19542 google video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8762512180812934446

Regards.

http://code.google.com/summerofcode.html
http://code.google.com/soc/mentorfaq.html#29

The project has to be under one of the approved licenses... and since lazarus is a modified lgpl it probably did not qualify. It must be OSI certified.
http://www.opensource.org/docs/certification_mark.php#approval The lgpl qualifies. But with modifications it would need to have been submitted to them first for approval.

---dale

Lazarus and FPC are GPL, only the libraries are LGPL with the explicit permission to link statically. Anyways, I got an unfriendly replay and I learned not to spent any time in it anymore.

Florian Klaempfl wrote

I got an unfriendly replay and I learned not to spent any time in it anymore.

I also got frustrated by the reply, but I investigated it and arrived to a conclusion that we were probably rejected because we applied too late. Based on the following topics it seams like Google just takes the first entrances and then rejects everyone after they reach a certain limit.

http://groups.google.com/group/Summer-Discuss-2006/browse_frm/thread/28d3ece6861de524/1e1f00b5bfc5d560#1e1f00b5bfc5d560

http://groups.google.com/group/Summer-Discuss-2006/browse_frm/thread/a013321b73700725/5e8d2b4126963c0b#5e8d2b4126963c0b

JM> The application was rejected (without explanation). JM> Jonas

I'll allow myself two remarks:

1. On the code.google.com:
Your search - pascal - did not match any documents.

2. Freepascal is too marginal to support.
(But I like it.)

Пётр Косаревский с mail.ru wrote

2. Freepascal is too marginal to support. (But I like it.)

They support Adium, a instant messenger I had never ever heard about. Also Adium only works on Macs.

They also support various other extremely marginal software.

I still think they are just disorganized and let anyone get in until they realised they had too many projects and started rejecting the others.

I've recently read that this exception is actually not really necessary. The only thing that is required with the regular LGPL and static linking, is that the unlinked object files of the proprietary code are made available, so they can be linked against newly compiled versions of the LGPL part (if a user would want to do so).

Of course, it's a slight inconvenience for the software author that he has to make these object files available.

Jonas

Probably you are right.

But even that Adium thing has few advantages over FPC:
1. it's goal is easy to understand
2. any computer-unfriendly man is supposed to become able to use it

FPC is easier to compare with LispNYC. Which, in turn has its advantages (like being "close" to huge american city).

And about too many projects: they can reject students.

Well, it's a pity anyway.

And only an insider can help to both understand the reason and participate next time (good advices should be enough).