7 Aug
2009
7 Aug
'09
9:26 p.m.
On Friday 07 August 2009 17:31:36 Robert Keller wrote:
On Aug 7, 2009, at 2:07 PM, drew Roberts wrote:
Not at all. There is even evidence in the FSF documentation somewhere exactly
about this point and they vehemently disagree with any attitude like that. We
all know very well the situation of Emacs, Xemacs, and various other forks.
So it is just too bad that he does not understand the benefits to his own
project by having similarly named forks, but this is no surprise given his
other misunderstandings about the GPL and free software.
Naturally, forking a GPL project is OK.
Forking a project and calling it something nearly identical (removing
a dash) cannot help but generate confusion and is an example of
hostile fork. Here are some guidelines for forking, which seem
sensible to me:
Some of that is nonsense.
Don't bother to reply. I leave this group with a
fair amount of
bitterness and disappointment in the way one of your members has
conducted himself. To those who seemed to understand my position along
the way, I thank you for your support.
No, he is leaving because he realized that not everyone is going to
automatically side with him on these matters.
And in case you all do not realize it yet, there is no fork. So all this crap
he is blasting out is stupid. There is only an SF project that hosts code for
the exact same program, with no real changes to them.
This is the typical behavior that I saw in the person, jumping to conclusions
without checking the facts. See for yourself. There is a possibility of a
fork, but no such thing exists at present.
Raymond