[Leaplist] Novell again

[Chris]

Fred Moore wrote:

>On Tuesday 05 December 2006 11:18, Damien McKenna wrote:
>  
>
>>On 12/5/06 11:09 AM, Fred Moore wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>>They're *not* forking OOo, they're creating alternative builds with a
>>>>new default save format, big deal.
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>Anytime code changes from the base code of a project ie: developed or I
>>>should say changed and redestributed outside the standard project release
>>>tree I consider it a fork.   What do you consider a fork?.. Fred
>>>      
>>>
>>That strict definition then means that every distro out there that has ever
>>created released forks of the software on their CDs.  I consider it a fork
>>when a separate project is spun off with its own name, etc, instead Novell
>>is just bundling a new exporter which they'll also be feeding back to the
>>original project when they get that far.  The "GPL-pure" releases of the
>>Mozilla projects are forks, I don't consider Novell's actions to be a fork
>>of OOo.
>>    
>>
>
>First off every distro according to the GPL must supply source for anything 
>they supply.  I seem to remember that FSF took exception to one of the 
>distro's saying "just obtain debian source code" as an inaproporate answer. 
>Don't remember who the distro was.. perhaps someone here remembers. 
> 
>However it seems that my strict definition applies here as the GPL requires 
>they they as the changer and distributer of the origional or new modified 
>code must provide origional source plus source code to the modifications.  
>The GPL does not mention anything about changing the name..  It also doesn't 
>go into changes to code that *may* effect the origional some time in the 
>future.  You also assume which I don't  that 1) They will be feeding it back 
>and 2) The changes will be accepted. 
>
I don't think Damien is assuming they will be feeding it back -
I think the GPL assumes that - or they're in violation, which is
a bad place for a Linux distro to be if they want to retain
a) customers b) open-source developers.

There are many hundreds of "forks" of Linux (and by Linux,
I mean just the kernel) running in labs and universities that
have special needs. But those aren't really forks, and we don't
have to see their code until they are openly distributed. Once
they are distributed, then the potential for a fork exists.

A better analogy might be a distro that adds something to
KDE and tweaks the desktop defaults. Even if that distro
is released in that fashion, I'm still of the opinion that it's
not a fork until KDE refuses to integrate it. Has OO.org
declined to integrate a change they haven't even seen yet?
Do they have a mission statement that says "We will never
support the following file formats...?" If OO.org integrates
the OpenXML code, will the fork simply be changing the
default? How many distros out there change default builds
in one package or another without a word of complaint?
I'm thinking - all of them.

Novell may well be Microsoft's evil puppet. But I'm not sure
adding code to a distro that increases its flexibilty and
interoperability is evidence of that.

Cheers,

Chris