On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 11:13:52PM -0800, David Champion wrote: > * On 29 Jan 2016, mutt-us...@rcdrun.com wrote: > > > > So, whoever is producing the fork, DOES work with the community within > > the scope of the GNU GPL. > > Working within a development community and keeping the terms of a > license are disjoint. Doing one gains you no ground on the other. > mutt-kz keeps the license. It does not work with the greater mutt > community.
I wasn't familiar with mutt-kz, but ultimately, I think some of these projects have helped in less direct ways. I didn't follow the (now defunct, AFAICT) mutt-ng project much, but it seems to me as if it put some much needed pressure in terms of making mutt development a little more active (and maybe a little more accepting of adding new features). In the long run, it'll be clear if a project like this is going to build momentum or fizzle out, but I don't think it's a bad thing either way; it's just part of an eco-system. Additionally, if any great features get developed in the other project, it probably wouldn't take much to merge them in. w
