Talk:List of software forks

Suggested criterion
If the fork is notable enough to rate a Wikipedia article, it probably belongs here - David Gerard (talk) 18:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

need actual source for CdrXXX
Schily asserts that the issue is "alleged"; however the only source apparent for stating that it is (a) alleged and (b) lots of lawyers etc, is in fact Joerg Schilling. Some non-interested source is needed at a minimum TEDickey (talk) 10:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Try to be constructive and do not claim things that are obviously wrong. This is obviously an alleged "issue" as there is not a single legal prove for it. There is just a claim fom an OSS hostile entity named Debian. In contrary, there are many lawyers that confirm that there is no legal problem. For this reason, you would need to give a prove in case you like to remove the word alleged. --Schily (talk) 11:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

As usual, none of your remarks reference a reliable source, and verge on libel TEDickey (talk) 11:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * As usual, you seem to have strange ideas on what sourced information is and you again support people who try to to libel me. How about treating this as it is done in civilized countries?


 * There is libel and nothing but libel from Debian against the Cdrtools project and as a result, there is not a single proof for the claims from Debian, so an encyclopedia cannot mention more than an alleged "license conflict". If you like to remove the term "alleged", feel free to prove your claim, but plase stop being a party in this game. --Schily (talk) 13:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Copying the references from cdrkit for the perceived licence problem was ten seconds' work. But by all means, do continue arguing the original 2006 dispute on this page - David Gerard (talk) 10:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Quoting libel from Debian does not prove anything. This discussion is about whether there is more than an alleged "license conflict", so either prove this or keep it as it is. --Schily (talk) 15:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * No, the discussion is what the reason for the fork was. You do concede the fork happened, right? The reason was the perception by Debian that the new licence was problematic. Whether that legally holds or not is a separate issue: the statement in the article is about the reason for the fork, and the references detail the reason for the fork. That you don't like the fork, and whether or not your legal assertions concerning the fork hold and whether or not Debian libeled you, is not actually part of Debian's reasons for forking. The sentence fragment you dispute is entirely about the reasons for the fork, and the references I give list the reasons. The back-and-forth about validity of the reasons belongs in cdrkit, which in fact turns out to be where it is - David Gerard (talk) 21:25, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice to see that you now concur with me that there is no proven but only an alleged license issue. BTW: this so called "fork" is dead since more than 5 years and the fork rather than the original has license issuses. And to understand the background, you of course need to know that Debian started this dispute in May 2004 already when they tried to force me to include a broken patch into mkisofs. The libel with the co called "license issue" is no more than a red herring - an attempt to make people forget that Debian has massive social deficits. --Schily (talk) 09:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "perceived" is not the same as "alleged" in English. I chose "perceived" because it was the collective perceptions of the project (that there was a licence issue) that were the stated, referenceable issue that led to the fork. Your other interactions with Debian are actually side-issues to that - David Gerard (talk) 14:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The claim is still wrong, provably wrong.


 * Given the fact that the fork was not created in 2006 but rather in May 2004 is a verification that even "percieved" "license problems" is wrong and unsustainable for Wikipedia.


 * Given the fact that the so called "verifications" tagged to that text in the WP article is no more than self claimed text, is against WP rules that requires a reliable verification for every claim.


 * It is a matter of facts that Debian stopped distributing the original cdrtools and started to distribute a buggs fork in May 2004. This happened at the same time when Debian started an anti-social defamation against the cdrtools project. So there is no provable relation to even a "perceived" license problem. This is easily verified as Debian started to introduce Debian specific bugs in May 2004 and caused aprox. 100 Debian specific bug reports in the Debian bugtracking system by the end of 2004.


 * What happened in Fall 2006 is that Debian was asked to rename their buggy fork in order to avoid confusion of users that believed that the bugs are bugs from upstream. But the named bugs did never exist in the original.


 * Given that Debian later renamed their fork to "cdrkit" and all these aprox. 100 well known Debian specific bugs continued to exist, this verifies that we are talking about a fork from 2004.

So let us not make WP an advertizing platform for an anti-social entity. The fork happened in May 2004 and was verifiable unrelated to alleged license issues. Schily (talk) 20:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Schily, back to normal, has no reliable source to support any of his comments, and is being abusive (still no change). TEDickey (talk) 21:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Everybody knows that you frequently come up with this kind of claims but you never have reliable sources. It is easy to verify my statements and (in contrary to the false claims from Debian) the time line cannot be faked. I encourage you to stop stalking me and to stop stealing other peoples time with your meritless claims. Schily (talk) 22:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * If you don't like other people's observations, perhaps you could amend your behavior so that you do not get the unwanted attention. TEDickey (talk) 00:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If you do not want to be criticized for your unsubstantiated allegations, there is a simple solution: just stop sending meaningless complaints. Schily (talk) 10:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Debian/Red Hat/Slackware
Citation is that picture. See the three big trees on it? Those are Debian, SLS and Red Hat. Perhaps Slackware could be changed to SLS? - David Gerard (talk) 22:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Sounds right. I first encountered Slackware when looking for SLS (the latter from an associate's comments), and didn't find SLS (just some of its descendants). TEDickey (talk) 23:44, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The defective Debian fork from cdrtools that is now called "cdrkit" started in May 2004 and not in 2006
It is a verifiable fact that Debian stopped updating their sources in May 2004, then added aprox. 100 own bugs and originally tried to publish their defective fork under the original name. Since May 2007, no development activity except typo correction in comment or documentation can be seen on this "fork".

In Autumn 2006, the authors of the original software interdicted Debian to continue to use the original name for the defective fork and as a result Debian renamed their fork to "cdrkit", keeping all previously well known Debian-specific bugs. The current article text therefore is verifiable wrong. Schily (talk) 11:51, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * This is your personal statement of your opinion on their work which you cite only by alluding to a hypothetical synthesis, not of the actual date of cdrkit being declared (April 2006) nor to the license changes you made that led to the removal of your version of cdrtools (January 2006). You may not have liked the distro patches up to that time, but it would not be helpful to the reader to list every instance of a distro maintaining patches against an upstream, which is what you're actually describing - David Gerard (talk) 15:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Added third-party WP:RS coverage of the fork, which dates it to no earlier than 2006. If you have third-party RS coverage of the matter that supports your claim that the distro patches since 2004 constituted a notable fork, this is the time to bring them here. (I found a proposal of a fork from 2004, but fork proposals are cheap - 2006 is the first sign of action on it.) - David Gerard (talk) 17:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Debian is deliberately lying with respect to "cdrkit" and Mr. Corbet just forwards these lies, neither Debian nor Mr. Corbet can be seen as a reliable source. Corbet cannot even be seen as a journalist as he more or less literarily forwarded the claims from Debian without even asking the other side for an explanation. If you like to follow the Wikipedia rules, you need to find reliable sources. This are sources that cannot be forged, e.g. the bug tracking system from Debian. If you check this (it is unfortunately a hard work to find this in already closed though unfixed bug reports), you will be able to verify that Debian stopped to update the sources in May 2004 (as there are a few bugs that existed in the original sources before May 2004 but have been fixed later - still long before September 2006) and that what they later called "cdrkit" has exactly the same Debian specific bugs than the fork they created in May 2004. QED => "cdrkit" and the fork created in May 2004 are identical. BTW: please do not remove maintenance tags before the issue was resolved. Schily (talk) 17:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * There isn't an issue, and there's now a third-party reliable source (LWN.net has long been generally accepted as a reliable source for computing topics on Wikipedia) even if you personally don't like it. If you can find a third-party reliable source that bothered writing this up and backs your timeline of events, go for it. The Wikipedia policies I suggest you review are WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:SYN - David Gerard (talk) 20:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * We have a verified proof that Mr. Corbet is not a reliable source: he just forwards attacks from a hostile party (Debian) that started social attacks in 2004 and Corbet did never even ask the attacked party. So what you have is no more than three copies from the same non-trustworthy source: the attacker Debian. On the other side, we have a reliable source that verifies that the Debian fork exists since May 2004. This simple time stamp disproves all claims from Debian. Now you need to decide whether you follow the WP rules that require reliable sources or whether you like to become part of social attacks against an OSS project. Schily (talk) 22:27, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * There's no evidence the "we" there involves nobody who isn't you. Again, if you can produce verifiable, uninvolved, third-party, reliable sources that support your claim on behalf of yourself and your project, we'd at least have a starting point - David Gerard (talk) 08:34, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Wonderful, you discovered the rules - now you just need to follow them. As Corbet is an involved party that 1:1 forwards claims from the attackers, you still have just three copies from the false claims of an involved party. Find reliable sources - I explained you how to get them. Schily (talk) 10:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * You are now using Wikipedia talk pages to make unsubstantiated personal attacks on others. Per WP:BLP, "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, persondata, article titles and drafts." Please stop making such attacks immediately - David Gerard (talk) 16:34, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ??? personal attacks ??? It seems that you don't understand what this is. It is no personal attack to write fact based text on a person. You however just started an edit war by removing a maintenance tag before the request from the maintenance tag was handled. Stop this edit war. Schily (talk) 17:11, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The official date is 2006. It is not about your personal opinion but about the official date. 'nuff said. Find a announcement saying "uploaded first version of cdrkit" in 2004. We write on what is in the news, and LWN is a news site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.52.23.213 (talk) 21:35, 13 November 2015 (UTC)