On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Raymond Martin <laseray@email-addr-hidden> wrote:
> On January 27, 2011 11:08:30 am Paul Davis wrote:
>> ...
>> while i admire what you are trying to do with OOM/OOM2, the forking of
>> an existing, well-known project, without any attribution whatsoever,
>> or even acknowledgement of the fork, is troubling to say the least.
>
> It is not troubling at all. And completely in accord with licenses, the only
> real thing that matters.
if you think that the license is all that matters about free software,
then i suspect we don't see eye to eye on a great many things.
i'm glad you're respecting the license, and i'm glad that there is
work going on with another great tool for audio & MIDI on linux.
i just don't remember other cases where major existing FLOSS projects
were forked and the new fork didn't explicitly acknowledge "this a new
fork of XXXX", presumably because it helps to establish continuity,
confidence and belief in the virtues of the fork. the fact that you
forked Muse and not LMMS, for example, makes OOM2 look much more
interesting than it could have been otherwise.
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Received on Thu Jan 27 20:15:09 2011
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jan 27 2011 - 20:15:09 EET