Re: [LAD] What if a fork is not a fork?

On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 3:14 PM, Raymond Martin <laseray(a)gmail.com> wrote: no. they, we, i am acting as though you'd better have a pretty reason ("lack of sleep", "just forgot", "dog ate the webpage" will almost do, so its not much of a barrier) for NOT providing attribution if you do NOT want the rest of the community to conclude that you're a douchebag for forking a project. not because you need to, but because if you want people to think nice thoughts about your motives as a forker, being nice towards the original development time is likely to help quite a bit. however, i think your posts here have made it clear that you're the sort of person who is not in the least bit concerned of whether people have a positive opinion of you, and if that's true, then certainly you can ignore everything but the license and nothing bad will happen from your perspective. in the specific case of OOM, i'm still not sure i really understand why they didn't provide any attribution originally, but they have now, and so the case is closed there. they are now "nice guys" doing more than following licenses, by actually behaving as if they are part of a community. neither they, or you, or i are required to behave in that way, but i know that i certainly believe that the community does better when people do.