Talk:List of software forks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Suggested criterion[edit]

If the fork is notable enough to rate a Wikipedia article, it probably belongs here - David Gerard (talk) 18:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

need actual source for CdrXXX[edit]

Schily asserts that the issue is "alleged"; however the only source apparent for stating that it is (a) alleged and (b) lots of lawyers etc, is in fact Joerg Schilling. Some non-interested source is needed at a minimum TEDickey (talk) 10:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Try to be constructive and do not claim things that are obviously wrong. This is obviously an alleged "issue" as there is not a single legal prove for it. There is just a claim fom an OSS hostile entity named Debian. In contrary, there are many lawyers that confirm that there is no legal problem. For this reason, you would need to give a prove in case you like to remove the word alleged. --Schily (talk) 11:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

As usual, none of your remarks reference a reliable source, and verge on libel TEDickey (talk) 11:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

As usual, you seem to have strange ideas on what sourced information is and you again support people who try to to libel me. How about treating this as it is done in civilized countries?
There is libel and nothing but libel from Debian against the Cdrtools project and as a result, there is not a single proof for the claims from Debian, so an encyclopedia cannot mention more than an alleged "license conflict". If you like to remove the term "alleged", feel free to prove your claim, but plase stop being a party in this game. --Schily (talk) 13:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Copying the references from cdrkit for the perceived licence problem was ten seconds' work. But by all means, do continue arguing the original 2006 dispute on this page - David Gerard (talk) 10:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Quoting libel from Debian does not prove anything. This discussion is about whether there is more than an alleged "license conflict", so either prove this or keep it as it is. --Schily (talk) 15:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
No, the discussion is what the reason for the fork was. You do concede the fork happened, right? The reason was the perception by Debian that the new licence was problematic. Whether that legally holds or not is a separate issue: the statement in the article is about the reason for the fork, and the references detail the reason for the fork. That you don't like the fork, and whether or not your legal assertions concerning the fork hold and whether or not Debian libeled you, is not actually part of Debian's reasons for forking. The sentence fragment you dispute is entirely about the reasons for the fork, and the references I give list the reasons. The back-and-forth about validity of the reasons belongs in cdrkit, which in fact turns out to be where it is - David Gerard (talk) 21:25, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Nice to see that you now concur with me that there is no proven but only an alleged license issue. BTW: this so called "fork" is dead since more than 5 years and the fork rather than the original has license issuses. And to understand the background, you of course need to know that Debian started this dispute in May 2004 already when they tried to force me to include a broken patch into mkisofs. The libel with the co called "license issue" is no more than a red herring - an attempt to make people forget that Debian has massive social deficits. --Schily (talk) 09:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
"perceived" is not the same as "alleged" in English. I chose "perceived" because it was the collective perceptions of the project (that there was a licence issue) that were the stated, referenceable issue that led to the fork. Your other interactions with Debian are actually side-issues to that - David Gerard (talk) 14:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Debian/Red Hat/Slackware[edit]

Citation is that picture. See the three big trees on it? Those are Debian, SLS and Red Hat. Perhaps Slackware could be changed to SLS? - David Gerard (talk) 22:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Sounds right. I first encountered Slackware when looking for SLS (the latter from an associate's comments), and didn't find SLS (just some of its descendants). TEDickey (talk) 23:44, 8 October 2013 (UTC)