Philosophically, no. Realistically yes.
In order for many coding
projects to continue under a forked version the project requires
a coder capable of actually writing the code in the first place.
We've seen one aspect of this happen with #MySql
. MariaDB would not be the huge success that it is if it were not being programmed by the same exact engineers who originally wrote MySql to begin with. We've also seen this aspect of key original coders working on a fork to produce a new superior software version with #LibreOffice
as well as #CalligraSuite
We've seen another aspect with #Firefox
under Debian. The Debian developers took umbrage against the Mozilla Trademarks and artwork licensing; which many downstream users considered a trivial non-issue. So Debian fork(s) the Mozilla source code and builds their own version. This aspect is also mirrored in #CentOS
/ *stripped* out the RHEL branding and artwork and published their own version. However, these types for forks are largely bound to the upstream source; IceWeasel and CentOS never could really differentiate themselves from simply being source code rebuilds as many of the key engineers and developers capable of driving those projects were invested elsewhere. Granted, that's now changing with CentOS; so that example is mostly historical.
These examples may highlight just WHY
the whole +Debian
_debate_ on systemd versus Upstart leaves many downstream users tilting their head. Upstart should have never even been presented as an option in the first place Because
of that CLA; especially given Debian's history of being overly anal on Free-Software positioning.
So people like Ian Jackson are claiming that Debian can just fork
the code from Upstart and maintain their own version; like Debian already does with Mozilla projects. Slight problem; those Debian versions of Mozilla software are entirely reliant upon Mozilla to actually do all of the heavy lifting of development and writing the code.
In the same way, a fork of Upstart would still be entirely reliant on the Upstart code-base. It's not that Debian does not have the developer base that could write their own init system, write their own answer to kdbus, or so on and so forth. It's that a significant number of developers capable of doing that kind of work to begin with have already stated flat out that the Canonical CLA was WHY THEY WORKED ON SYSTEMD TO BEGIN WITH.,
Let me repeat that different words in case Ian Jackson or +Jono Bacon
or +Mark Shuttleworth
or anybody else from Canonical or who works with Canonical like +Colin Watson
actually reads this. That CLA of Canonical's already directly cost them the exact developers who could have made Upstart a success across all distributions. That CLA already fueled an answer to Upstart that is under a clear Free-Software licensing format.
Now, honestly, I've been biting my tongue to keep from posting this type of whiskey tango foxtrot doods: how is this even an issue in the first place
posting on Canonical staff members to the Debian mailing list. There are cooler heads involved there like +Bdale Garbee
, Intel's +Keith Packard
, and Russ Allbery.
But hopefully even a cursory glance at history gives you an idea over why simply forking Upstart out of the CLA is not a reasonable option for Debian to pursue.