X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Sender: qpaz
From: "al davis (ad252 AT freeelectron DOT net) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: [geda-user] Buttons for automation (obligatory grab at our shared 3rd rail) Re: [geda-user] Antifork
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 08:49:40 -0400
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.2.0-4-amd64; KDE/4.8.4; x86_64; ; )
References: <CAM2RGhTJ-gywb3LrkKoNKUxkwJCTsJ7vRxiLtmrXa5Mnp0331w AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <201508242052 DOT 28189 DOT ad252 AT freeelectron DOT net> <55DC2A83 DOT 3090100 AT jump-ing DOT de>
In-Reply-To: <55DC2A83.3090100@jump-ing.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201508250849.40158.ad252@freeelectron.net>
Reply-To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com

On Tuesday 25 August 2015, Markus Hitter (mah AT jump-ing DOT de) [via 
geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote:
> There is ever only one reason for a fork: if the mainstream
> distribution disallows changes. gEDA has no such
> restrictions I'm aware of. As long as your work doesn't
> break code for others, you're welcome to hack away on it.
> Including moving (more) stuff into plugins.

Not disallows changes in general, but might disallow the 
particular change you want to make, which likely is for the 
reason "break code of others".

This, in some variant, is very often the case.  To arbitrarily 
allow changes turns all of the code into a big mess, so there 
need to be some rules.