Re: [LAD] Impro-Visor created on sourceforge

On 08/09/2009 04:39 AM, Raymond Martin wrote:
> 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.
>
>

What is the difference?

>>> 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.
>
>

So you have distributed a binary and the code that goes with as well as
making (minor) changes to the code including attributing copyright to
the various original authors in a way that wasn't done with the version
of the application that you reverse engineered and that is not a fork?

What is a fork if not all the above?

Patrick Shirkey
Boost Hardware Ltd

>>> 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.
>>
>>
>
> I better not use sarcasm, only others are allowed to do that to me.
>
> Raymond
>
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-audio-dev mailing list
> Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
> http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
>

_______________________________________________
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 00:15:04 2009