This reminds me of a similar issue that happened within the Scala community. David Polak, the creator of the Lift framework (which is used in production in many

This reminds me of a similar issue that happened within the Scala community. David Polak, the creator of the Lift framework (which is used in production in many top sites), had originally worked hard to create the framework (along with others) and make it production worthy. Later, he realized that the releases of the framework he had created were happening without his involvement. But, instead of accusing the community, he said something remarkable which only multiplied my original respect for him: I never "left" the Lift community. Yes, I have other project and work in different languages. What I did was cease to be Lift's benevolent dictator for life. Lift has grown way beyond one person and the fact that the 2.5-M4 release was done without me is a strength, not a weakness. [1] Because, that's the spirit of open source. When you release something to the public, for public consumption, then you must understand that someone is eventually going to fork it up and assign it a different nomenclature, sometimes even a nomenclature that you may not like. In this case, this particular project had no standardization and a part of the community decided to just standardized it. If you don't like this standardization, then simply don't use it. Use what resonates with you. If you feel the standardization has some flaws, then fork it and fix what's wrong. IF people agree with you, eventually they will end up using your fork. It's as simple as that. What is funny is to see John Gruber who appears to be butthurt about this, when his contributions have grown negligent (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8266574 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8266574), inconsistent and his recent focus has been more on other (personal) things.[2] This reminds me of Luca Pasani[3], who released the much popular WURFL repository as open source in a liberal license first, then one fine day, cried foul because other people (including companies) were using it for profit (in accordance with the license), deleted all online repositories and instances of the project released under the old liberal license [4], then re-released the project with a comparatively restrictive license.[5] In my opinion, releasing something for open, public consumption means you have to develop an honest mindset of accepting that other people WILL benefit from your creation eventually. If you don't get that right, then open source is probably isn't for you. (And crying foul later, is a double standard, if you do) [1] http://stackoverflow.com/questions/12424617/comparing-lift-with-play2#comment20481903_12428316 http://stackoverflow.com/questions/12424617/comparing-lift-w... [2] like writing controversial Apple articles at daringfireball. [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luca_Passani http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luca_Passani [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WURFL#License_update http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WURFL#License_update [5] http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/01/09/169216/wurfl-founders-fire-off-dmca-takedown-against-fork http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/01/09/169216/wurfl-founders...