[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:
