On Sun, 16 Jul 2006, Rahul wrote:
Not sure how a agreement with upstream would encourage forking. Max, can
you expand on that?
Here's the full text of the email that I sent to Bruce Byfield, the
newsforge reporter, from which he quoted briefly:
==============
There are several reasons why the Fedora Project would be hesitant to
officially sanction downstream distributions to point to upstream code
repositiories, rather than those downstream distributions directly
redistributing the code.
The first has to do with the issue of forking. If the downstream
developer has improvements, those improvements should be fed into the
upstream code whenever possible. If downstream doesn't want to push those
changes upstream, then it makes sense that the downstream distribution
should bear the burden of redistributing the source for the forked code.
Secondly, there is an issue of legal liability. In the case of an
upstream distribution allowing a downstream re-distribution to point at
the upstream repositories, the upstream party would be assuming legal
liability for the downstream modifier, and that is not something that the
Fedora Project is interested in doing.
The third issue is that of cost -- which while a valid concern, in my
opinion is a lesser issue than the other two.
==============
--
Max Spevack
+ http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MaxSpevack
+ gpg key -- http://spevack.org/max.asc
+ fingerprint -- CD52 5E72 369B B00D 9E9A 773E 2FDB CB46 5A17 CF21
--
Fedora-marketing-list mailing list
Fedora-marketing-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-marketing-list
