On Thu, Jan 11, at 07:39 Randy McMurchy wrote: > > When folks fork a project, typically it is up front and center that it > is forked code from another project. Typically, you don't have to scour > through obscure pages (your license page which *nobody* will ever visit > as an example) to find attribution. An example is the poppler package. > > They upfront on *every* page explain the project is a fork and why. > Here's an example: > > http://poppler.freedesktop.org/ > > Note that the very first paragraph of the home page explains it is a > fork. To me, this is the honorable way to do things. YMMV. >
Sorry to jump in the discussion,but I personally can't see CLFS as a fork,but more like a lfs-child,but certainly not as a fork. It's an entirely different project with a clear targeted audience and different scope. Do you know what I would like to see from lfs. A 64-bit port of lfs. Wow I am lost! A fork of a forked project. You know...they are just plain stupid words. We all belong to same neighborhood and we have to feel like friends,I am feeling anyway...because first: we have nothing to split and second: we don't have the luxury to split our efforts to parts. With that in mind and it's the third time I am writing this(I hope the last one),I would like to see BCLFS to be officially a part of BLFS and its developers as BLFS developers. And that is a proposal. What the community has to say about this? -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
