On 18/10/2016 09:56, John Ralls wrote:
>> On Oct 18, 2016, at 8:13 AM, Paul Phillips <p...@patchpitch.com> wrote:
>> Hi John,
>> Indeed it is a shame, and I regret causing the discord and suspicion.  
>> Please accept my apologies.
>> Thanks for your insight and the link to the SFC.  I shall get in touch with 
>> them.
>> The only other way of engaging with the GnuCash project without the need of 
>> either a contract or management oversight is to create a fork.  It would 
>> therefore obviously be completely optional whether the dev team adopted any 
>> of the changes.  But if the fork development matched the Gnucash roadmap and 
>> project guidelines, the chances of merger would presumably increase.
>> However the key to enabling this to succeed is the user base, and as a fork, 
>> the user base starts from scratch.
> Paul,
> There are forks and then there are Github forks. The latter is one usual way 
> for "outside" developers and documentors to contribute, submitting their work 
> through a Github pull request (which is a bit different and much easier to 
> use than the traditional git email pull request used by the Linux project.
> The other kind of fork is what happened with Open Office a few years ago: 
> Unhappy with the way Oracle was managing the product, a large chunk of the 
> development team took the code base and created a new product, Libre Office. 
> I think that's what would have to happen with a "commercialized" GnuCash: The 
> "commercial" team would have to create a new product to work on to guarantee 
> that the paid-for work actually gets released in a product. 
> I've put "commercial" in scare-quotes because the new product would still be 
> limited by the provisions of the GPL and the GnuCash project would be able to 
> merge any changes that they liked into the Free version. Both because of that 
> and the limitations of the GPL the "commercial" entity would have to find 
> some other way of monetizing the product; that's normally done on open source 
> projects by selling support. IMO that's a hard nut to crack: Developers, 
> documentors, and managers are expensive and the "commercial" entity would 
> need a pretty hefty cash-flow; a reasonable-sized team might run as much as 
> $1M/year once overhead is included.

Drifting a bit I've wondered more than once about the relationship
between GnuCash and KDE's KMyMoney https://kmymoney.org/ looks like that
was forked


gnucash-devel mailing list

Reply via email to