Forking Free and Open Source Software
Free and open source software may be legally forked without the approval of those currently managing a software project or distributing the software, per the definitions of "free software and "open source"":
- "Freedom 3: The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits"
- "3. Derived Works: Redistribution of modifications must be allowed, to allow legal sharing and to permit new features or repairs".
In free software, forks often result from a schism over different goals or personality clashes. In a fork, both parties assume nearly identical code bases, but typically only the larger group, or whoever controls the Web site, will retain the full original name and the associated user community. Thus, there is a reputation penalty associated with forking. The relationship between the different teams can be cordial or very bitter.
Eric S. Raymond, in his essay Homesteading the Noosphere, stated that "The most important characteristic of a fork is that it spawns competing projects that cannot later exchange code, splitting the potential developer community". He notes in the Jargon File:
Forking is considered a Bad Thing—not merely because it implies a lot of wasted effort in the future, but because forks tend to be accompanied by a great deal of strife and acrimony between the successor groups over issues of legitimacy, succession, and design direction. There is serious social pressure against forking. As a result, major forks (such as the Gnu-Emacs/XEmacs split, the fissioning of the 386BSD group into three daughter projects, and the short-lived GCC/EGCS split) are rare enough that they are remembered individually in hacker folklore.
David A. Wheeler notes four possible outcomes of a fork, with examples:
- The death of the fork. This is by far the most common case. It is easy to declare a fork, but considerable effort to continue independent development and support.
- A re-merging of the fork (e.g., egcs becoming "blessed" as the new version of gcc).
- The death of the original (e.g. the X.Org Server succeeding and XFree86 dying).
- Successful branching, typically with differentiation (e.g., OpenBSD and NetBSD).
More recently, distributed revision control (DVCS) tools have popularised a less emotive use of the term "fork", blurring the distinction with "branch". With a DVCS such as Mercurial or Git, the normal way to contribute to a project is to first branch the repository, and later seek to have your changes integrated with the main repository. Sites such as Github, Bitbucket and Launchpad provide free DVCS hosting expressly supporting independent branches, such that the technical, social and financial barriers to forking a source code repository are massively reduced.
Forks often restart version numbering from 0.1 or 1.0 even if the original software was at version 3.0, 4.0, or 5.0. An exception is when the forked software is designed to be a drop-in replacement of the original project, e.g. MariaDB for MySQL or LibreOffice for OpenOffice.org.
Read more about this topic: Fork (software Development)
Famous quotes containing the words free, open and/or source:
“The Government is able to afford a suitable army and a suitable navy. It may maintain them without the slightest danger to the Republic or the cause of free institutions, and fear of additional taxation ought not to change a proper policy in this regard.”
—William Howard Taft (1857–1930)
“Thank God we’re living in a country where the sky’s the limit, the stores are open late and you can shop in bed thanks to television.”
—Joan Rivers (b. 1935)
“The source of Pyrrhonism comes from failing to distinguish between a demonstration, a proof and a probability. A demonstration supposes that the contradictory idea is impossible; a proof of fact is where all the reasons lead to belief, without there being any pretext for doubt; a probability is where the reasons for belief are stronger than those for doubting.”
—Andrew Michael Ramsay (1686–1743)