On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 9:39 AM, alex stone <compose59@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Deep in the basement of the OpenOctaveProject, the team have been > working hard, to bring OpenOctaveMidi into the modern age. From the > new interface, to the workflow features, OOM2 is the result of a great > deal of hard work, and thought. In our Project journey towards a great > Linux Audio pipeline, OOM2 represents the next important step. I think it would be a little more respectful if you notified this crowd precisely which *existing* codebase you "put a blowtorch to". i already know the answer, but i think it would better to hear it from you guys. altering the indentation and global search-and-replace of the project name does not constitute much of a blowtorch. while i admire what you are trying to do with OOM/OOM2, the forking of an existing, well-known project, without any attribution whatsoever, or even acknowledgement of the fork, is troubling to say the least. if you had done this with ardour, i'd be raising bloody hell about it. there's absolutely nothing wrong with a fork (other than potentially being a waste of developer resources), but i do think that not even *naming* the well-known project that OOM2 is based on is close to morally problematic, and perhaps worse. --p _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
