Peter Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes: > > > Bitkeeper is (as you note) not free. Not only the usage restrictions > > are a problem, but also the requirement that changes you make may be > > distributed by BitOwner "under any license". > > Thats not non-free in any way. The Freedom DFSG describes is not > freedom for the developers but for the users and such restriction > doesn't apply to ordinary users. The NPL (and MPL IIRC) has the same > requirements.
OK, perhaps the relicensing rule is not non-free; I'm less sure of that. But the outright prohibition of certain modifications certainly kills it. > > One strategy would be to bring down all the Open Logging servers, and > > keep them down for six months. Then it reverts to the GPL. :) > > Please don't even suggest such actions not even in jokes. It would be > very sad to see Open Source fanatics use terorism to spread the use of > open source. 1) Regardless of whether various legislatures have redefined the word "terrorism" to include illegal breaking into computers, I don't accede to their craziness. Wrong, perhaps, but not terrorism. 2) It's a joke. It would be very sad to see Open Source fanatics begin to treat everything as so deadly serious.