Other Software > Developer's Corner

Forking in Open Source Projects - Debate

<< < (2/4) > >>

mouser:
Out of curiosity, does anyone know of any licenses that forbid forking and or distribution, but make the software sourcecode available for individual modification/examination?

Deozaan:
Since I'm not experienced with doing anything with Open Source Software besides downloading it and using it, I can't really help much with licenses and those kinds of things, but what mouser describes sounds very reasonable to me, although it is clearly against a number of the points described in the Open Source Initiative definition.

Point #4 seems to be the point that agrees most with what mouser is saying, as it could require any forks to be installed as unofficial patches on to the pristine base code of the original author(s):

4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code

The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified form only if the license allows the distribution of "patch files" with the source code for the purpose of modifying the program at build time. The license must explicitly permit distribution of software built from modified source code. The license may require derived works to carry a different name or version number from the original software.

Rationale: Encouraging lots of improvement is a good thing, but users have a right to know who is responsible for the software they are using. Authors and maintainers have reciprocal right to know what they're being asked to support and protect their reputations.

Accordingly, an open-source license must guarantee that source be readily available, but may require that it be distributed as pristine base sources plus patches. In this way, "unofficial" changes can be made available but readily distinguished from the base source.
--- End quote ---
(emphasis added)

mouser:
Nice find Deozaan, that gets a little closer to my interests.

Gothi[c]:
Forking is just a result from a natural desire of developers to implement their own wishes into a project if the main branch is unwilling to do so. If you license your project under the GNU GPL, any forks will have to be released under the same license. Therefore you can freely backport any useful development back into your program. I see forks only as a positive thing, broadening the software choices.

steeladept:
 I agree with Gothic.  While you may not get credit for the base project if someone swoops in with marketing gimicks, the license (GPL, this may not apply for others) prevents them from preventing you to incorporate their work back in.  Merging, if you will.  There is nothing that stops it and it can only allow for better flow of ideas and talent.  I equate it (somewhat) to plug-ins for other software.  The obvious difference, of course, is the ability to bundle it and force it down the user's throat; er, I mean, make them install that critically needed feature whether they know it is critical or not.  ;)

Seriously, though, I don't see forking a problem, and if you really want to prevent it but maintain the open license for moral reasons, then be sure to build a rich and robust plugin architecture.  Kinda like a little program I know of that does a great job of this.  You may have heard of it <cough> FARR </cough>.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page