[nanomsg] Re: New fork (was Re: Moving forward)

  • From: Garrett D'Amore <garrett@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: Martin Sustrik <sustrik@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 14:22:51 -0700

Great.  I'd rather not fork and I agree about the unnecessary confusion.

Trademark can stay where it is as long as you continue to give permission for 
non-commercial use by the project. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 19, 2015, at 1:22 PM, Martin Sustrik <sustrik@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Garrett,
> Sorry for not responding in time.
> Given that I have almost no time to work on nanomsg :( , I would be happy to 
> cease the control of the project to you.
> Making a fork is unnecessarily confusing for the users IMO.
> I am not sure about the trademark though. Should we pass it to some kind of 
> neutral entity?
> Martin
>> On 2015-03-19 19:41, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
>> All,
>> Given the responses I’ve received so far (and also the lack of any
>> response from Martin), I’ve decided that it is appropriate to create a
>> fork.
>> I’ve created a new fork, called mamomsg - located here:
>> https://github.com/gdamore/mamomsg
>> <https://github.com/gdamore/mamomsg>
>> The idea is to stay close to the spirit of nanomsg, and, as much as
>> possible, API compatible.  But we’re going to fix some of the bugs.
>> It may well be possible / practical to re-merge with nanomsg at some
>> point in the future — if that happens, I’m supportive.  My fork here
>> cannot be called “nanomsg” as Martin owns the trademark, and frankly I
>> want to avoid confusion.
>> libmamomsg has the same ABI as libnanomsg, but is -lmamomsg.  I’ve
>> left (for now) the headers in place.  I might change that it the
>> future.
>> I consider libmamomsg *extremely* rough at present — frankly as I’ve
>> spent more time in libnanomsg there is a lot of roughness there too.
>> I’m going to fix some of that — for example just use cmake everywhere
>> and ditch autotools, and get CI automation of testing for all
>> platforms, not just Windows.  I may find that its better to move
>> headers or change symbol names, but if I do that, I’ll leave some kind
>> of compatibility layer in place.  I’m not sure yet what that will look
>> like, but I have some ideas.
>> I’m happy to accept PRs  or to involve other questions, concerns, etc.
>> For now, I’m going to keep using the nanomsg lists.  That may change
>> in the future too.  We shall see.
>>    - Garrett

Other related posts: