Re: [LAD] What if a fork is not a fork?

On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 3:14 PM, Raymond Martin <laseray@email-addr-hidden> wrote:

> It won't hurt, but is not required in any way, shape, or form. And that is
> what people on this list are making a fuss about. They acting like it is
> absolutely required.

no. they, we, i am acting as though you'd better have a pretty reason
("lack of sleep", "just forgot", "dog ate the webpage" will almost do,
so its not much of a barrier) for NOT providing attribution if you do
NOT want the rest of the community to conclude that you're a douchebag
for forking a project. not because you need to, but because if you
want people to think nice thoughts about your motives as a forker,
being nice towards the original development time is likely to help
quite a bit.

however, i think your posts here have made it clear that you're the
sort of person who is not in the least bit concerned of whether people
have a positive opinion of you, and if that's true, then certainly you
can ignore everything but the license and nothing bad will happen from
your perspective.

in the specific case of OOM, i'm still not sure i really understand
why they didn't provide any attribution originally, but they have now,
and so the case is closed there. they are now "nice guys" doing more
than following licenses, by actually behaving as if they are part of a
community. neither they, or you, or i are required to behave in that
way, but i know that i certainly believe that the community does
better when people do.
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Received on Sun Jan 30 00:15:06 2011