It's great that more and more developers think about licenses. Though, there's one aspect that I find... underdocumented.
From time to time there may arise a need to fork a project. Either changes are out of the scope of the original project and they wouldn't ever be accepted upstream, or the upstream maintainers are not as responsive as community requires or for whatever other reason there may be. It's counter-productive to keep the original name (and have basically two diverging projects with the same name) or have original authors listed as the maintainers to be bothered about bug/features in the project they don't maintain (I'm not talking here about attribution).
So what's the proper forking procedure? Is there any differences depending on the project license?
Slashdot Mirror
It's great that more and more developers think about licenses. Though, there's one aspect that I find... underdocumented.
From time to time there may arise a need to fork a project. Either changes are out of the scope of the original project and they wouldn't ever be accepted upstream, or the upstream maintainers are not as responsive as community requires or for whatever other reason there may be. It's counter-productive to keep the original name (and have basically two diverging projects with the same name) or have original authors listed as the maintainers to be bothered about bug/features in the project they don't maintain (I'm not talking here about attribution).
So what's the proper forking procedure? Is there any differences depending on the project license?