On Saturday 08 August 2009 14:25:37 you wrote:
On 08/09/2009 04:27 AM, Raymond Martin wrote:
On Saturday 08 August 2009 14:06:52 you wrote:
On 08/09/2009 03:36 AM, Raymond Martin wrote:
Yes this would apply for the commercial product against any others that
are sold. It won't apply against free software because nothing is sold.
Does it really matter? Do you really need to keep the name? If your fork
of the project continues active development while the institute
continues to develop their version then there will definitely be
confused users at some point down the line.
There is no fork. I am wondering how many times do I have to write that.
I think you may have confused the issue by stating at the very start of
this set of thread that you were going to fork the project and that you
had reverse engineered the binaries.
I would have to look back to see if I actually wrote "fork the project"
or if I wrote fork Impro-Visor. In any case, it is the application that
is important, not the idea of a project.
There is no fork, it does not exist. There is only a project with
a similar name, and packages of the original version, no forked program,
no forked code, nada. Except I did make a couple of minor changes in the
Impro-Visor packages I put up. Those were just to make it better for
others so they would not end up violating the GPL.
Sorry but how exactly is this different from a fork? Is there a guide
that you have read somewhere that explains the exact steps required for
making a fork? Why have you now decided that you are not actually
forking the project when you originally declared that was the intended
result of your efforts?
A fork of an application is an application. What else could it be?
All I am saying, very clearly I might add, is that there is no application
that could be considered a fork and that is what all the discussions
are about.