On Saturday 18 November 2006 03:13, M. Fioretti wrote: > > > Indeed, apart from being an entirely pointless exercise as the fork > > > would be just as illegal to distribute as the original, it would also > > > never happen. > > > > Really? Never? > > Go look at how many linux distros have sprung up from > > Debian recently. Why are we running xorg instead of Xfree? > > Because XFree was developed, packaged and maintained in a way that > pissed a lot of developers and distro packagers off. That's common > knowledge, and this (the patents parts of the Novell-MS deal) an > entirely different issue. You keep confusing copyright with patents, > see my other message.
I'm not confusing anything Marco, I'm simply pointing out that the reasons for forks in the past have been MUCH LESS than the MS/Novell situation. I think the patents issue is a red herring, until and unless something, ANYTHING, can be shown to infringe. Its not germane to the discussion about people wanting to fork. <fire retardant> I'm not suggesting a fork, and not in favor of one, I simply am expressing the opinion that forks happen all the time, sometimes for very little reason, and there is no reason to think it unthinkable. </> -- _____________________________________ John Andersen
pgpGX3LBl3sAR.pgp
Description: PGP signature
