Assuming the protocol still maintains waves ability's; *open *federated *selective sharing (that is, sharing X with just a few people) *realtime Wave should be the name given to the server to server protocol, imho, but not much else. Google made the mistake of calling everything wave. The server to server protocol, the client and the conversation thread in the client. That was just silly really.
Ideally anything developed should maintain server to server compatibility with Apaches. But, at this point, if this project takes off better then it would be upto Apache's java server to adapt to this ones. ~~~ Thomas & Bertines online review show: http://randomreviewshow.com/index.html Try it! You might even feel ambivalent about it :) On 2 December 2013 20:30, Patrick Coleman <patcole...@google.com> wrote: > The proposal seems to include rewriting the OT stack, changing the > language(s) the client and server are written in, and moving to github. > If this is the case, is there any point in still being called Wave? > > It sounds like not much will be able to be transferred other than > knowledge, > so is there any reason to not just create a kickstarter for GentleWare (or > whatever you want to call it :p)? > I guess it is still a wave-y project, but this is kind of like the > Theseus's paradox of project naming. > > (although I'm not that familiar with licensing concerns, so maybe there's > part of the federation protocol or the OT spec which > can only be used by 'Wave' in which case it makes sense). >
