-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Apologies for taking up list traffic with this, but I feel I must correct
this public assertion. 

On Tue, 18 June 2002, C Falconer wrote:
> *cough* minor correction...  The smartnet server was written by an
> employee of the company now known as Flashnet.  The Smartnet server is a
> fork of the original server.  BTW both run on Linux.

*cough* Unique interpretation of the word "fork" there. 

A bit of a background. A long time ago, back when I was a student at
Canty, I did a little bit of "consultancy" (which is inflating it somewhat
:) ) for a company called Smart Computer Systems. We deployed small Linux
boxen to do shared Internet access, fairly basic stuff at that. Just a
copy Slackware running Squid and Sendmail. Smart Computer Systems was, at
that stage, several largely seperate people trading as the same
name. Effectively, I was employed by them seperately. 

After a, er, "disagreement" with one of my employers, I stopped working
for them, and continued to work for the other parts of Smart Computer
Systems. At that stage they all still traded under the same name, but they
don't now. The party I stopped working for is now marketing their
solutions as Flashnet.

A considerable time later (in fact, after I'd also stopped working for the
Smartnet people, but only because I'd left uni and taken a job in another
city), Smartnet was born. It was, to the best of my knowledge, developed
independently of anything Flashnet were doing, It certainly wasn't based
on any work I'd done back then. 

A fork, by definition, is a split of source code. Installing Linux for
other people is not a "fork". Certainly when I was still working for the
Flashnet people very little code was written, and what was written was at
best a few shell scripts to make life slightly easier, and wasn't even put
under a licence which would allow it to be forked. Nor did I take any code
with me when I left.

Since no code was actually forked, to call Smartnet a fork of Flashnet is,
IMO, an extraordinary claim. They are, as far as I know, completely
seperately developed products. I also don't accept that they are a fork in
the sense that I was involved in deploying early revisions of both. They
were, as I've stated above, simple Linux installs with a little shell
glue. Next someone will claim my Linux installs where I work are a fork of
Flashnet! After all, they've got some shell glue as well.. :)

- -- 
David Zanetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.75-6

iD8DBQE9DuosT21+qRy4P+QRAo1AAJ9ciYIyZktIVZbJa/79Bd61KI0I8ACg2sC4
h0WSUnfJeNgE6LKM8TRKn/k=
=SUm0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


Reply via email to