
​Matthew Garrett is not forking Linux (2015) - edward
http://www.zdnet.com/article/matthew-garrett-is-not-forking-linux/
======
donatj
Can someone explain how him forking the code is _not_ forking beyond his
insistence that it isn't. It seems like a pretty cut and dry fork. He intends
it to some day be merged, but fork and merge is a common pattern. I think he's
trying to avoid the stigma of a "fork" vs a fork but the difference is a gray
area, and his dance over terminology is silly.

