Re: [LAD] Impro-Visor created on sourceforge

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.

> 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?

> I guess that was selfish.
>

You are putting the words in your own mouth here. There's no need to
suggest this even as a joke. I certainly haven't suggested it is the case.

Patrick Shirkey
Boost Hardware Ltd.

_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Received on Sun Aug 9 00:15:03 2009