Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by jhasse 2557 days ago
> It may have had something to do with licensing -- at the time the Qt license meant it wasn't free software [...]

So the fork basically violated GIMP's license, right? I think it's very far fetched to conclude "GIMP crew will happily throw a hissy fit at any fork" from that!
2 comments
defective 2557 days ago
I don't think they even forked it necessarily, and the Qt hack/patch wasn't even published. It was just presented at some Linux thing. This was the only story I could find that resembled a reason for inferiorhuman's prejudice. There are also hundreds of current existing GIMP forks, and no evidence that the GIMP crew is gearing up for street violence.
link
prokoudine 2557 days ago
Unsure if inferiorhuman and defective are the same person, but this is so much fun.

1. Pick a story from 20+ years ago.

2. Pretend you are talking about the same people (they aren't).

3. Pretend they never changed their opinion about anything (they did).

4. Post a comment that suggests nothing changed since 1998 (it has).

My goodness, some people on the interwebz...

link
defective 2557 days ago
I'm not sure I follow your logic, but if it helps clear anything up, I did emphasize that this was an old story, like twice. I am also aware that Qt is GPL now, and that GIMP has hundreds of forks.
link
prokoudine 2557 days ago
I don't think you really mean this literally. Hundreds of forks... :)
link
defective 2557 days ago
333!

None of which really compete, but yeah, literally hundreds. Just one big one though, GIMP Painter.

link
prokoudine 2556 days ago
You are looking at the wrong number :) That's the total amount of forks on GitHub. Whereas only 15 of them had any commits by people who forked the repository. Among those 15 people:

- One is a regular GIMP contributor.

- One couldn't wait another day for a macOS build of version 2.10.12.

- One patched file association on Windows and submitted his patch to the upstream project.

- Some of the others worked on their pet peeves, and some of them discussed it on the upstream bug tracker.

You might want revisiting your definition of a fork :)

link
defective 2556 days ago
Sure. I'll agree with your definition then!

*Ah, what the fork! I just realized you're a GIMPer. You think that thing I said about the 1998 drama is what inferiorhuman was referencing?

link