Historically, it means a community of developers have decided to break with the old project for some reason. Jenkins is a community fork. Mariadb is a community fork. Joomla is a community fork. Illumos was a community fork. Rocky Linux is a community fork. Valkey is a community fork.
This is a personal project by someone with no connection to the project or its code. It is misleading to claim to represent the Warp "community". Maybe there will be a community around Warp someday, and maybe there will be a reason for community members to fork it, but for now, it is a newly open sourced project, and this is a person trying to build their own reputation on someone else's work.
Forks are a good and natural part of the Open Source and Free Software world. But, a good fork doesn't look anything like this. It involves stakeholders, it respects the work others have put into the project in the past, and it doesn't confuse users with a misleadingly similar name.
At the very least, you change the name when you fork something, if you have any decency or respect for Open Source and its historical mores. I wouldn't have said a word about it, if they'd changed the name, I would have ignored it (as I assume most people would have, if it didn't share a name with something people are already talking about). But, since they're coming out of the gate being an entitled jerk about software that folks have chosen to Open Source, I'm inclined to point out that they're not behaving ethically on multiple fronts.
Rocky Enterprise Software Foundation is a benefit corporation founded by the original founder of CentOS and other CentOS developers in response to CentOS becoming a stream OS instead of a stable OS.
You'll have to be specific about what dubious ethical decisions you mean. I'm unaware of any, and I feel like I'm pretty tuned into this specific story.
If you’re “pretty tuned in” you would at least know that all this founder & foundation fluff is a load of corporate PR BS.
I was also referring to them shipping broken releases early on and them fighting with users about it instead of fixing and figuring out why they were publishing broken garbage.
You probably can't name a project OpenWarp for the same reason you can't name a search engine OpenGoogle, even though it's a different name to the original. In this case, it's particularly confusing because the original warp project _is_ now open source.
It's how you'd talk about a dog that you know the sex of, but if you didn't know you'd probably use "it". An LLM doesn't have a sex or gender, so I think the natural way to refer to them is "it".
Neither have I, but mostly because either the person knows the gender of the animal or the situation just never came up. The closest that I would say is "Es scheißt gerne aufs Auto" when talking about pidgens (die Taube), but even then you generally talk about multiple, resulting in "Sie scheißen gerne aufs Auto"
Really ? "Es kackt auf's Auto" ? I guess, it might make sense when the person speaking has no specific bird on mind, but only thinks of "das Tier" (the animal). One could also say "er hat .. geckack (der Vogel)", but usually, people wouldn't say "er/sie/es", but use the fully specified noun ("die Taube ... hat..", "der Vogel ht ...", "ein Tier hat ...")
"Es kackt auf's Auto" feels slightly weird to me, if I didn't know whodunnit, I'd probably say something like "irgendwer hat mir aufs Auto gekackt" ("someone pooped on the car"), although there is a also "irgendwas hat mir aufs Auto gekackt" ("something pooped on the car"). My guess is the majority of German would choose the first sentence and anthropomorphize, but maybe I'm projecting.
It's an interesting question, after all. Thanks for bringing it up, haven't talked about pooping on cars for a while ;)
You're right, open source and free software are not the same thing, but software licenced under the MIT licence is still free software. Even the FSF describes the MIT licence as a free software licence (see my other reply in this thread).
This seems to be a misunderstanding by the author, a licence doesn't have to be copyleft to be free software. Even the FSF describes the MIT licence as a free software licence (they prefer calling it the Expat licence).
> Expat License (#Expat)
>
> This is a lax, permissive non-copyleft free software license, compatible with the GNU GPL.
reply