On Saturday 08 August 2009 14:25:37 you wrote: > On 08/09/2009 04:27 AM, Raymond Martin wrote: > > On Saturday 08 August 2009 14:06:52 you wrote: > >> On 08/09/2009 03:36 AM, Raymond Martin wrote: > >>> Yes this would apply for the commercial product against any others that > >>> are sold. It won't apply against free software because nothing is sold. > >> > >> Does it really matter? Do you really need to keep the name? If your fork > >> of the project continues active development while the institute > >> continues to develop their version then there will definitely be > >> confused users at some point down the line. > > > > There is no fork. I am wondering how many times do I have to write that. > > I think you may have confused the issue by stating at the very start of > this set of thread that you were going to fork the project and that you > had reverse engineered the binaries.
I would have to look back to see if I actually wrote "fork the project" or if I wrote fork Impro-Visor. In any case, it is the application that is important, not the idea of a project. > > There is no fork, it does not exist. There is only a project with > > a similar name, and packages of the original version, no forked program, > > no forked code, nada. Except I did make a couple of minor changes in the > > Impro-Visor packages I put up. Those were just to make it better for > > others so they would not end up violating the GPL. > > Sorry but how exactly is this different from a fork? Is there a guide > that you have read somewhere that explains the exact steps required for > making a fork? Why have you now decided that you are not actually > forking the project when you originally declared that was the intended > result of your efforts? A fork of an application is an application. What else could it be? All I am saying, very clearly I might add, is that there is no application that could be considered a fork and that is what all the discussions are about. > > I guess that was selfish. > > You are putting the words in your own mouth here. There's no need to > suggest this even as a joke. I certainly haven't suggested it is the case. > I better not use sarcasm, only others are allowed to do that to me. Raymond _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
