Subject: [boost] [OT] Open Source Forking and Boost (was Re: [SQL-Connectivity] Is Boost interested in CppDB?)
From: Dean Michael Berris (mikhailberis_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-12-14 21:20:51
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 7:35 AM, Mateusz Loskot <mateusz_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> I will only refer to complain on the slow SOCI release schedule.
> So, instead of deciding to join an existing project, which N.B. you have used with some degree of success, and help
> to speed its release process, help with fixing bugs and propose to add features you are missing, you decide to fork it, tweak it and release it.
I'm not sure but is CppDB a fork of SOCI? If that was the case, then
the original copyright holders of the original code would have to be
consulted if the fork was going to be released under a different
license. IANAL, but there may be some issues with forking a
BSL-licensed project to be an LGPL project.
> This is not how FOSS works to make a project healthy and sustainale in long term. Your observable disappointment about
> software here makes me asking, what's next? Boost libraries forked?
Well... actually... forks are a valid means of diversification in FOSS
projects. Whether it's successful in what the fork is supposed to
achieve is a different issue altogether.
About Boost Libraries being forked, I don't think that's inherently a
bad idea -- especially since there's already a number of Boost
libraries that seem "unmaintained". The only issue I see with forking
Boost libraries at this time is the infrastructure used to host the
code; SVN wasn't meant to encourage forking compared to say how Git or
Mercurial allow forking to be as trivial as branching and merging.
I'll leave my comment on SVN at that at risk of inciting the SCM
debate yet again. ;)
> Anyways, I'm just disappointed how much FOSS is ego-driven
> where it should mean collaboration. Just pity.
+1 in general.
-- Dean Michael Berris deanberris.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk