Adam Turoff wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 12:14:17AM -0400, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> > Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > > The decisions should be based on technical merit and general availability.
> > 
> > I would include "available under a free software license" as part of the
> > definition of "general availability".  
> Bradley, your argument against perforce really sounds like you're saying
> your uncomfortable with non-free software in general, not with perforce
> in particular.

Yes, that is my argument.  I don't think we should have key, required tools
in the development chain for perl6 be proprietary software.  I would have
nothing against perforce if they release it as free software.

>  I haven't heard a reason to switch to CVS yet[*].

Thanks for making some.  ;)

> [*] The biggest reason IMNSHO to use CVS is to encourage people to hack
> the source; more people know and use CVS on a daily basis than use
> perforce, at least in the free software community.

Bradley M. Kuhn  -

PGP signature

Reply via email to