8 Aug
2009
8 Aug
'09
4:19 p.m.
On Saturday 08 August 2009 14:06:52 you wrote:
On 08/09/2009 03:36 AM, Raymond Martin wrote:
There is no fork. I am wondering how many times do I have to write that.
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. I guess that was selfish.
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. Can't you just change the name and leave this
debate in the dust?
I do not have to change the name of a non-existing entity, do I?!
I understand that you have put in a lot of effort to
get this far but
now you are risking your rep by making a stand on a name that you didn't
originate and therefore shouldn't feel any real attachment to.
Wasn't much effort, haven't even begun really.
What rep? No rep.
Nobody knows what I am doing or going to do, except maybe my better
half. Why project the future which does not exist. There is not really
even a seed to comment on yet.
Everybody seems to be going way overboard from my perspective.
Nothing there to comment on really. No fork, no violations, no trademark
issues, nothing. Why are we talking about nothing?
Raymond