I have never understood this fork argument. All it takes to make it work is a clear division for the project.
If you want to make something, and it requires modification of the source for a GPL project you want to include, why not contribute that back to the source? Then keep anything that isn’t a modification of that piece of your project separately, and license it appropriately. It’s practically as simple as maintaining a submodule.
I’d like to believe this is purely a communication issue, but I suspect it’s more likely conflated with being a USP and argued as a potential liability.
These wasteful practices of ‘re-writing and not-cloning’ are facilitated by a total lack of accountability for security on closed source commercialised project. I know I wouldn’t be maintaining an analogue of a project if there were available security updates from upstream.
I have never understood this fork argument. All it takes to make it work is a clear division for the project.
If you want to make something, and it requires modification of the source for a GPL project you want to include, why not contribute that back to the source? Then keep anything that isn’t a modification of that piece of your project separately, and license it appropriately. It’s practically as simple as maintaining a submodule.
I’d like to believe this is purely a communication issue, but I suspect it’s more likely conflated with being a USP and argued as a potential liability.
These wasteful practices of ‘re-writing and not-cloning’ are facilitated by a total lack of accountability for security on closed source commercialised project. I know I wouldn’t be maintaining an analogue of a project if there were available security updates from upstream.