linuxaudio.org

--nextPart1700702.U1vChKxPp3

Content-Type: Text/Plain;

  charset="iso-8859-1"

Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Thursday 27 January 2011 20:57:22 drew Roberts wrote:

quoted text
> On Thursday 27 January 2011 11:56:22 Paul Davis wrote:

> > i just don't remember other cases where major existing FLOSS projects

> > were forked

>=20

> This is not about what is going in in this thread in any direct way. (Or

> may not be at least, I do not know enough to say I guess.)

>=20

> What if I "fork" a project because I think it gives me a good starting

> point or base for what I want to do but the direction I intend to take

> things will result in a completely different sort of program to the one I

> forked? Should that still be considered a fork or is there another term

> for such a beast? Would another term be useful?

There is really nothing wrong telling your users that you used another app =

as=20

starting point.
But there is something morally wrong when you tell your users that you used=

=20

another project as starting point and did more or less big changes but then=

=20

you refuse to tell your users which app you forked...
--nextPart1700702.U1vChKxPp3

Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc

Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEABECAAYFAk1B0nEACgkQuYLL1cDjHx1RAQCeOdBcqizOXqYVNvukth2B5ATg

brwAn0IuRYTSqSEssuH1bL01Pu6YF8YO

=nAZv

-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--nextPart1700702.U1vChKxPp3--