[ntp:hackers] Re: public server listing

Frederick Bruckman fredb at immanent.net
Thu Nov 11 13:12:49 PST 2004


On Thu, 11 Nov 2004, Brad Knowles wrote:

> At 7:24 AM -0600 2004-11-11, Frederick Bruckman wrote:
>
>>  Ah, but the Bitkeeper license *specifically* prohibits you from
>>  contributing code to any other revision control systems, such as CVS
>>  -- that non-free thing, again. I can tell you that some NetBSD
>>  developers will not (can not) use BK for that reason.
>
> 	Yes, this issue has been mentioned on the FreeBSD mailing lists, too.
>
> 	I understand that this was done after several people started using 
> BitKeeper without charge and then ripping off stuff for their own competing 
> systems they were developing. My understanding is that if you pay for a 
> commercial-use license, you can do whatever you want.  But certainly, I can 
> understand why they wouldn't want people to use the no-charge license and 
> then rip everything off for their own competing system.

I can understand why a person might feel compelled to do a lot of 
things, too, but that doesn't mean I approve of them (e.g.: murdering 
your spouse...)  The fact is, that provision goes way beyond anything 
found in a typical "free" or "demo" license.

> 	Getting back to the broader topic, Harlan is the guy who is primarily 
> responsible for messing with the source code management system, and he has 
> had several problems doing what he wants to do with CVS.  He tried various 
> alternatives, and found that BitKeeper suits his needs the best, all things 
> considered.

Sure, on those grounds. I'd simply like to suggest, to the Bitkeeper 
defenders, that they be a little more understanding of folks who are 
unable to use Bitkeeper, either because they can't comply with the 
license, or because it isn't portable to their platform.


Frederick




More information about the hackers mailing list