27 Jan
2011
27 Jan
'11
8:50 p.m.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [LAD] [LAU] OpenOctaveMidi2 (OOM2) beta release
From: Thomas Vecchione <seablaede(a)gmail.com>
To: Christopher Cherrett <ccherrett(a)openoctave.org>
Cc: Orcan Ogetbil <oget.fedora(a)gmail.com>om>, LAU Mail List
<linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org>rg>, Linux Audio Developers
<Linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org>
Date: 01/27/2011 12:47 PM
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 2:38 PM, Christopher Cherrett
<ccherrett(a)openoctave.org> wrote:
Paul Wrote:
while i admire what you are trying to do with OOM/OOM2, the forking of
an existing, well-known project, without any attribution whatsoever,
or even acknowledgement of the fork, is troubling to say the least. if
you had done this with ardour, i'd be raising bloody hell about it.
there's absolutely nothing wrong with a fork (other than potentially
being a waste of developer resources), but i do think that not even
*naming* the well-known project that OOM2 is based on is close to
morally problematic, and perhaps worse.
End Quote:
Seems a bit more than a question, seems there is a few insinuations.
Again please enjoy your new tools in open octave midi :)
Thanks!
--
Christopher Cherrett
ccherrett(a)openoctave.org
http://www.openoctave.org
I suspect there is much more to this puzzle than
attribution. I suspect we
rocked the boat just a bit too much and too fast.
No, there really isn't.(At least not in as far as the original post
that started this was concerned)
Not sure why you keep insisting there is, but there isn't. It was a
simple request, easily answered, and was turned into something much
more than it really should have been.
You also seem to think that the Ardour project is disgruntled with
you. Not really. In fact many of us were discussing this project
yesterday and today both on IRC, and aside from the attribution issue,
it was well received in general and more than a fair amount of well
wishing. There are things that confuse us, such as why fork an
existing project when you were asked to put something in Mantis,
instead of writing a patch for the single feature or expanding it, but
that is your choice, and is part of the freedom of open source
obviously and I think everyone gets that. The primary detractor from
it was simply the attribution issue and clarifying that.
At any rate, I think that has been expressed, wish you well on your
project and I may play around with it myself before long as well.
Thanks for the contribution to the community.
Seablade