On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 12:36 PM, Jim Gifford <c...@jg555.com> wrote: > > We are not a fork, never have been.
How is it _not_ a fork? CLFS has different goals, a different structure, runs on its own servers and contributes nothing (until 2 days ago) back to its supposed parent project, LFS. I see no other way to describe CLFS than a fork. Now, there's nothing wrong with being a fork. Tons of successful open source projects were spawned from forks. You and Ryan had different goals about what you wanted to do and weren't getting that back into LFS. So you took up stake elsewhere and everyone moved on. The only bad thing is the splintering of resources, but that was happening anyway. We can call CLFS whatever we want, but by typical open source project standards, it is definitely a fork. I don't intend that as bashing in any way and admire what you guys have done. Really. -- Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
