On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 06:37:00PM +0200, Fredrik Persson wrote:
> In my case, I've considered a lot of ways of looking at things and I've come
> to the conclusion that the FSF philosophy is a good one, that I like. I assure
> you that I've looked nigh and far, so short-sighted is not something I c
> > That shows that you have not understood "Open Source". Open source is
> > not just about releasing source code. It's also about allowing forks.
> > If you don't allow forks, you're not open-source. That's a matter of
> > definition. It doesn't get much simpler than that.
>
> it's your definit
> > > This is really the problem, isn't it? Not to be mean or anything, but
> > > I actually think you'll be better off simply going traditional. Don't
> > > opensource at all.
>
> > well i don't have any problems releasing the sourcecode.
>
> That shows that you have not understood "Open Source
> well it was just an example from me. same situation happened earlier on
> other products. iirc that i read someone's reply on /. describing that
> there was an equal situation after someone started to fork emacs.
Correct; Emacs was forked into XEmacs and there were flamewars. I'm
not familiar wi
4 matches
Mail list logo
