Roundcube merger - Ideas from atmail

Jesse Thompson jesse.thompson at
Wed Jul 26 19:06:27 CEST 2006

richs at wrote:
> On Jul 26, 2006, at 12:49 AM, Thomas Bruederli wrote:
>> Hi everybody,
>> Just wanted to forward a mail I've got yesterday and would like to
>> hear your opinions about this topic. Either this could make RoundCube
>> grow faster or atmail just wants to get rid of some (more and more
>> serious) competition.
>> Don't panic, I didn't decide anything yet and I don't want to get rich
>> anyway :-)
>> Regards,
>> Thomas
> Their webmail interface seems like a nice RoundCube skin (with a few 
> more mature features, and a few missing ones). It would make sense that 
> they wouldn't want to duplicate efforts.
> If @Mail wants to inject some funding and/or code into RoundCube, in 
> exchange for packaging it with their product, I wouldn't see why not.  
> Many companies do this, such as Lyris MailShield who uses SpamAssassin 
> in their product.
> But, it sounds like they want to "take over" RoundCube, and turn it into 
> a commercial product (with an open-source "lite" version?). I think the 
> GPL states that all derivative sources must be made available "as a 
> whole at no charge".
> I'd rather see RC stay as it is; an independent open-source project 
> compatible with a variety of mail systems.  @Mail should be welcomed to 
> contribute like other companies involved, but RC shouldn't become an 
> "@Mail"-biased solution.
> Rich

If Roundcube had plugin support, atmail could package a branded version 
of Roundcube and then sell value-added plugins.  If the plugins actually 
add value to Roundcube, then ISPs will pay for them.  Perhaps the reason 
why they want to control Roundcube is to prevent their plugins from 
being reimplemented in the free version.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3299 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <>

More information about the Dev mailing list