On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 7:35 AM, Mateusz Loskot <mateusz@loskot.net> wrote:
Hi, I will only refer to complain on the slow SOCI release schedule. So, instead of deciding to join an existing project, which N.B. you have used with some degree of success, and help to speed its release process, help with fixing bugs and propose to add features you are missing, you decide to fork it, tweak it and release it.
I'm not sure but is CppDB a fork of SOCI? If that was the case, then the original copyright holders of the original code would have to be consulted if the fork was going to be released under a different license. IANAL, but there may be some issues with forking a BSL-licensed project to be an LGPL project.
This is not how FOSS works to make a project healthy and sustainale in long term. Your observable disappointment about software here makes me asking, what's next? Boost libraries forked?
Well... actually... forks are a valid means of diversification in FOSS projects. Whether it's successful in what the fork is supposed to achieve is a different issue altogether. About Boost Libraries being forked, I don't think that's inherently a bad idea -- especially since there's already a number of Boost libraries that seem "unmaintained". The only issue I see with forking Boost libraries at this time is the infrastructure used to host the code; SVN wasn't meant to encourage forking compared to say how Git or Mercurial allow forking to be as trivial as branching and merging. I'll leave my comment on SVN at that at risk of inciting the SCM debate yet again. ;)
Anyways, I'm just disappointed how much FOSS is ego-driven where it should mean collaboration. Just pity.
+1 in general. -- Dean Michael Berris deanberris.com