4 ms·

I am John Postlethwait. You could have submitted a PR. That's when/how open source works. I even state that I am happy to look at incoming changes, I'm just not

by cursive 10y ago

I am John Postlethwait. You could have submitted a PR. That's when/how open source works. I even state that I am happy to look at incoming changes, I'm just not actively maintaining it. This is a very minor, nigh silly, project but this sort of wanton bifurcation hurts open source's reputation and is already a huge problem in the Node community.

jmiserez 10y ago
While I agree in general that PRs are better than forks, I don't think what you're saying is totally fair. Your choice of licensing explicitely allows forks (and almost anything else) to happen. There have been many discussions on the topic [1], and there is no easy solution. Then, your choice of words is not ideal: >NOTE: I no longer actively maintain this package. I'd love to get PRs to keep it going though! If it's not maintained anymore then I as a developer don't really gain anything (bugfixes, features) by submitting a PR vs. just forking myself. So the choice to fork is understandable, even if it's not what you intended to happen. [1] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/10/how-do-you-avoid-being-forked-into-oblivion/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/10/how-d...
- LeFever 10y ago
  Except it isn't a fork. It's basically two projects merged into a new one and a small blurb in the readme to that effect. Why not fork and contact John about taking the original one over? If he doesn't respond within a reasonable time, run with the fork. I don't get the sense that happened here. I think the issue is less about license and more about what is good form and helps to keep the ecosystem a bit less cluttered.
- jacquesm 10y ago
  The name on the license was changed I think that totally justifies the remarks made and they were made extremely courteous given the situation. Forking is fine, merging two packages is fine, removing the authors name from the license (while leaving his name all over the rest of the package, which shows that there is no malicious intent, merely some confusion) is not.

by cursive 10y ago

jmiserez 10y ago

While I agree in general that PRs are better than forks, I don't think what you're saying is totally fair. Your choice of licensing explicitely allows forks (and almost anything else) to happen. There have been many discussions on the topic [1], and there is no easy solution. Then, your choice of words is not ideal: >NOTE: I no longer actively maintain this package. I'd love to get PRs to keep it going though! If it's not maintained anymore then I as a developer don't really gain anything (bugfixes, features) by submitting a PR vs. just forking myself. So the choice to fork is understandable, even if it's not what you intended to happen. [1] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/10/how-do-you-avoid-being-forked-into-oblivion/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/10/how-d...

LeFever 10y ago
Except it isn't a fork. It's basically two projects merged into a new one and a small blurb in the readme to that effect. Why not fork and contact John about taking the original one over? If he doesn't respond within a reasonable time, run with the fork. I don't get the sense that happened here. I think the issue is less about license and more about what is good form and helps to keep the ecosystem a bit less cluttered.
jacquesm 10y ago
The name on the license was changed I think that totally justifies the remarks made and they were made extremely courteous given the situation. Forking is fine, merging two packages is fine, removing the authors name from the license (while leaving his name all over the rest of the package, which shows that there is no malicious intent, merely some confusion) is not.