Comments on: Forkability https://quoderat.megginson.com/2005/12/29/forkability/ Open information and technology. Mon, 02 Jan 2006 12:19:13 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: links for 2006-01-02 at protocol7 https://quoderat.megginson.com/2005/12/29/forkability/#comment-368 Mon, 02 Jan 2006 12:19:13 +0000 http://www.megginson.com/blogs/quoderat/?p=78#comment-368 […] Forkability A discussion on defining a standard or software open if someone can fork it (tags: standards) […]

]]> By: Dan Sickles https://quoderat.megginson.com/2005/12/29/forkability/#comment-367 Fri, 30 Dec 2005 17:30:48 +0000 http://www.megginson.com/blogs/quoderat/?p=78#comment-367 As fto forkability, I like Richard Stallman’s response to Sun’s open source claims:

http://linux.sys-con.com/read/47210.htm?CFID=547041&CFTOKEN=C2CE5A81-DED5-E061-5625137C0F1A35A6

]]> By: John Cowan https://quoderat.megginson.com/2005/12/29/forkability/#comment-366 Fri, 30 Dec 2005 06:59:33 +0000 http://www.megginson.com/blogs/quoderat/?p=78#comment-366 I agree that forkability is a good quick test for the openness of software; if your code cannot be forked, you are not an Ephraimite. But I think standards are different: the quick test for an open standard is “Can anyone implement it against the will of the maintainer?” If so, it’s open. Just being able to change the text of the standard is not enough.

]]>