Well, on the one hand, I agree with you about one source of forks being old data, although at least this is a relatively simple fork: those who excise the allegedly-infringing parts of the database, and those who do not.
On the other hand, I think you are completely groundless in your assertion that it can't fork over future changes. There could be multiple patch databases with disjoint changesets in them, with different software using different databases.
And it's not _my_ parable. It's my rephrasing of the FA, and the comments by the FA's author in his own comments thread.
On the other hand, I think you are completely groundless in your assertion that it can't fork over future changes. There could be multiple patch databases with disjoint changesets in them, with different software using different databases.
And it's not _my_ parable. It's my rephrasing of the FA, and the comments by the FA's author in his own comments thread.