On 5/6/08, Landon Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: .. > > I think the ability to fork open source code puts a real limitation on > the ability of any one entity to create an "open source monopoly". Forks > are the ultimate evil in the open source world, but they sometimes > become the necessary "nuclear option". ..
I am finding it difficult to add up the above statement. Is forking "evil" (a very strong word especially when prefixed with "ultimate") or is it good (as implied by "necessary" in front of "nuclear option')? > One open source program that I can think of that survived a > serious fork is Inkscape/Sodipod, with Inkscape now being what > I would call an successful open source project. As described above, it seems to me that forking is the ultimate check-and-balance device which ensures longevity, as much as possible, of an OS project, and protects against lock-in. In that sense, it is the "ultimate good." -- Puneet Kishor http://punkish.eidesis.org/ Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies http://www.nelson.wisc.edu/ Open Source Geospatial Foundation (OSGeo) http://www.osgeo.org/ _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
