[Koha] Koha demo links on koha.org
kyle.m.hall at gmail.com
Sat Oct 10 05:42:35 NZDT 2009
To me, that theory just doesn't make sense. If it were true, why is it
LEK, and not just Koha. Why would they be offering 'Community Koha' if
LEK *is* 'Koha Community' ( assuming the theory were true ).
I was poking around the Liblime site and came across this page:
I am a bit upset because they are listing "Off-line circulation" as a
LEK only feature. So not only is this false information, but they are
taking credit for my own personal work ( it's listed under "LibLime
Crawford County Federated Library System ( http://www.ccfls.org )
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 12:15 PM, Walls, Ian <Ian.Walls at med.nyu.edu> wrote:
>> I guess LibLime is just calling it 3.2.
> If that's the case, that may reinvigorate my theory that LibLime considers their work to be the 'authoritative' Koha. Given that most LEK features were originally slated for Koha 3.2, there is a correlation, but LEK (from what I understand) is missing many of the features that other, non-LibLime developers have been working on. Hence the fork. Does LEK address the other RFCs for Koha 3.2 that WALDO did not originally sponsor? Are they being integrated into LEK from Koha, recoded by LibLime, or just dropped?
> I suppose I should poke at the LEK demo and learn more.
> This email message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is proprietary, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender by return email and delete the original message. Please note, the recipient should check this email and any attachments for the presence of viruses. The organization accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email.
> Koha mailing list
> Koha at lists.katipo.co.nz
More information about the Koha