On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 8:05 AM, Ian Lynch <[email protected]> wrote: > On 28 September 2011 13:31, drew <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Wed, 2011-09-28 at 13:05 +0100, Ian Lynch wrote: >> > > >> > > or why not just shake hands and part as friends. >> > > >> > >> > Of course we can but that makes inefficient use of the resources and is >> less >> > good for Open Source in general. >> >> Well, as you can guess I disagree - it's only inefficient if one >> doggedly holds to the idea that the two projects should (nor need to) >> share a common code base going forward - by why would that be? > > > Because it takes more resources to maintain two different code bases. > Resources are at a premium therefore duplicating effort makes no logical > sense. This is simple logic, nothing to do with dogmatism. The illogical and > emotional position is to do with ownership, not the logic of optimising > resources.
These concerns have been raise during the incubation proposal review back in June... and, back then, were rejected. Rob even wrote a blog dismissing them http://www.robweir.com/blog/2011/06/openoffice-libreoffice-and-the-scarcity-fallacy.html >I come back to the point that if division is intrinsically good, why not >fork Inkscape, Audacity, Gimp, etc etc. All these project a free-software, and no corporation is a position to re-license them. So the only reason for a fork would be a technical one, and technical issues rarely escalate to a fork. (one notable exception is egcc vs gcc... and indeed that lead to a re-unification... but that worked because gcc did not decided to switch to an incompatible license in response to the fork) Norbert
