On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 09:28:04PM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote: > > >Christopher Faylor wrote: > >>"arch"? As in Tom Lord's arch? *Shudder* >> >>Maybe we should see if bitkeeper will donate some code to us. After all >>they >>use cygwin for some of their stuff. Seems only fair. >> >>Then we get reasonable people with reasonable support. >> >>Perhaps even better, we could then have incessant discussions about the >>fact that bitkeeper isn't free and we could cast aspersions on Larry >>McVoy's character (inside joke for anyone who reads linux-kernel). > >Hooo boy, you've stepped in it now. :-)
Yeah, yeah, I know. >I think most folks who use/develop/understand cygwin will be more >accomodating to Larry's licensing terms than the l-k hackers are, given >the dual licensing nature of cygwin itself. You don't see a lot of >RMS-style license-vigelante-ism around here [it's GNU/Linux, dammit! >GPL or die! GNU/Cygwin! GNU/AIX! GNU/refridgerator! GNU/basketball! >... ] > >(crap; now I've jinxed it.] > >Anyway, one minor niggle: I, personally, am barred from using bitkeeper >for any purpose whatsoever. > >why? > >Because I "maintain" the cygwin port of cvs. Even though I don't, and >would not, use bitkeeper to maintain that port. The same would be true >of Rob, if he began maintaining a cygwin port of arch, or subversion. Are you sure about this? I know that people in Red Hat are using bitkeeper and Red Hat, the company, maintains a CVS package. And, an RCS package, and... I thought you had to be *developing* a source control system. >IMO, Larry's blanket ban on ANY free use of bitkeeper for those who >work/contribute to other source-management tools (hmm...source-navigator >_might_ fall into this category, too) is extreme, and hits wide of the >mark he's aiming for. He really just wants to prevent people from using >bitkeeper to develop competition TO bitkeeper. But he uses a >sledgehammer when a fly-swatter would do. > >Personally, I agree with his goal (he has a right to profit from his >labor, and no obligation to assist his competition). I just wish he'd >use the appropriate flyswatter. But, it's his code, and he can do what >he wants with it. He can even give it away for free to everyone on >earth NOT named "Chuck" and I'd have no cause for complaint. It's his code. > >BTW, [FUD warning; I am NOT sure of the following] isn't there a "no >free use on proprietary operating systems" clause in the bitkeeper >license? E.g. you can't run it (for free) under windows? Maybe, but again, if I was serious, I'd be looking for special dispensation from bitmover anyway. Hmm. Maybe I should change the license terms on cygwin to a "Can't be used in the installation non GPLed software". That'd get 'em. But really, I agree with Larry's goals too. He explains himself very eloquently and, while some would disagree, I think he maintains his cool pretty well in the light of all of the incredible criticism he receives. cgf
