+1 to everything Greg says, although I wouldn’t consider it to be a hostile fork just as I don’t consider the fork of Hudson to Jenkins to be a hostile fork. In my book it isn’t a hostile fork when the major contributors simply switch to the new repository and infrastructure. i.e - if the community largely is staying intact how can it possibly be a fork? You can certainly say the code forked (that happens all the time at GitHub and no one really cares) but what is more important to me is the community.
Ralph > On Sep 27, 2022, at 4:23 PM, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 4:55 AM PJ Fanning <fannin...@gmail.com> wrote: >> ... > >> In some cases, the critical fix might be submitted to the fork first >> and it may be easier for the Lightbend team to cherry pick those cases >> than it is for the fork team to do the opposite. >> > > Should an ALv2 fork arise *anywhere*[1], then I believe > Lightbend's community will vaporize. That community will follow the OSS > fork, and Lightbend will be relegated to picking up those ALv2-licensed > patches into their proprietary version. There will simply be no reason for > a community to hang around and contribute their work to the newly-licensed > and proprietary version of Akka. > > Cheers, > -g > > [1] whether at the ASF, or at an external hosting site. Note that, > historically, the ASF has been mostly against forks where the owner(s) > disagree with creating that fork (aka "a hostile fork"). --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
