Dear David, The efforts to bring back some sources to the original mutt are to be made by those developers of the original mutt.
That is the point of the GNU GPL licence. I have looked up in my dictionary the word "envious": _painfully desirous of another's advantages_ You see the disadvantage. I see the benefit. Someone is developing on his own mutt software, and that may be patched in the original mutt. If you think this is too much work, why not speak to the person who has made the forked mutt? Why bash such person, who is contributing, on the public list that is going to stay here for ages. Rosario On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 11:58:47PM -0800, David Champion wrote: > * On 29 Jan 2016, mutt-us...@rcdrun.com wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I don't understand why be jealous on something that has been clearly > > worked out in the licence itself. > > > > I don't know who is that man, but speak to him. Don't blame people for > > doing something that was intended to do in the first place. > > > > It was intention that everyone can make a fork and do what they want. So > > don't stamp on the freedom of software and GNU GPL, as there is just > > nothing written about the "Community" in the licence. > > > > Not even the word "community" is there. > > I don't follow why you're bringing up the GPL. It has nothing to do > with my concerns. I don't know who this guy is either, but as far as I > know he's completely within his licensed rights and I have nothing to > say about that. > > What bothers me is the approach. It follows the very loose flavor of > a thousand "fork me on github" users. This model is OK. It's open > source, it's great for downstream. But if only benefits upstream if > someone makes the effort to patch upstream. The usual model is either > that when you fork, you take responsibility for guiding changes back > upstream, or that people at both ends become cooperative partners in > exchanging ideas between forks. There are discussion and pull requests. > Karel Zak doesn't do this (he's never posted to mutt-users or mutt-dev) > and I don't recall that anyone else has ever made that effort either. > > So his project is de facto a divergent fork. It has its own > distributions and adherents, and nobody is bringing any efforts in > mutt-kz back to mutt. It divides the mutt user community. And his > decision to convert all his development to git means that even if > someone makes the missing effort, it's more work to cherrypick anything > back to mutt.
