jhell jh...@dataix.net wrote:
Feel free to correct me if I am wrong but it is not going to
matter much to what extent a license has to do with this besides
ease of mind maybe. We would not be using the source for the VCS
in a repo that holds the source that is being distributed and
none of
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 3:27 AM, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote:
As I understand it, what is being suggested is the adoption of a
new code base for a significant piece of infrastructure. I think
the proposal is at less risk of being summarily rejected if it can
viably be based on BSD-licensed
This dvcs is BSD licensed:
IMHO, if it's worth to change VCS, it would be much wiser to use well-known one
--
Regards,
Konstantin
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 4:10 AM, Jeremy Chadwick
free...@jdc.parodius.comwrote:
Given the amount of GPL'd software in the base system, why are we
already fighting over licensing? What is it with the open-source world
and obsessing with licensing? It should be up for discussion after
22.09.2010, 14:11, Adam Vande More amvandem...@gmail.com:
BSD license
has a particular advantage in embedded/black box systems, so not polluting
base with more viral licensing is pretty important to project as whole I
think.
Do embedded systems really need to use ports tree? I guess no, or
Smells like Debian.
Smells like Slashdot.
I give up.
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 7:11 AM, Adam Vande More amvandem...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 4:10 AM, Jeremy Chadwick
free...@jdc.parodius.comwrote:
Given the amount of GPL'd software in the base system, why are we
already
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 19:07:17 -0700
per...@pluto.rain.com wrote:
Janne Snabb sn...@epipe.com wrote:
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote:
One issue with either Git or Mercurial is that they are GPL.
AFAIK FreeBSD prefers to avoid GPL in the base or in critical
widely-used
1). http://bit.ly/d5UrtN
2). http://www.keltia.net/BSDCan/paper.pdf
3). http://bit.ly/97Y8Xi
4). Because CVS just does not do any of this.
Make your final comparison here:
http://bit.ly/cyQBn8
For the sake of argument can you think of any reason to not switch ?
Why not Git?
Or you
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 03:17, Konstantin Tokarev wrote:
In Message-Id: 174981284967...@web24.yandex.ru
1). http://bit.ly/d5UrtN
2). http://www.keltia.net/BSDCan/paper.pdf
3). http://bit.ly/97Y8Xi
4). Because CVS just does not do any of this.
Make your final comparison here:
On 20/09/2010 03:01, Carlos A. M. dos Santos wrote:
On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 6:34 AM, Ion-Mihai Tetcu ite...@freebsd.org wrote:
Insert VCS discussion here
Is this just my impression or are we trying to build a bikeshed
here?
I think we all agree, that the stage is not set for a VCS change.
Konstantin Tokarev annu...@yandex.ru wrote:
Why not Git?
One issue with either Git or Mercurial is that they are GPL.
AFAIK FreeBSD prefers to avoid GPL in the base or in critical
widely-used infrastructure if a viable non-GPL alternative
exists. Granted SVN, currently used to manage src, is
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 05:20:39AM -0700, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote:
SVN [...] is GPL;
nope, it's under Apache License 2.0, see:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/subversion/trunk/LICENSE
--
Romain Tartière rom...@blogreen.orghttp://romain.blogreen.org/
pgp: 8234 9A78 E7C0 B807 0B59
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote:
One issue with either Git or Mercurial is that they are GPL.
AFAIK FreeBSD prefers to avoid GPL in the base or in critical
widely-used infrastructure if a viable non-GPL alternative
exists.
The project currently uses Perforce for many
Janne Snabb sn...@epipe.com wrote:
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote:
One issue with either Git or Mercurial is that they are GPL.
AFAIK FreeBSD prefers to avoid GPL in the base or in critical
widely-used infrastructure if a viable non-GPL alternative
exists.
The project
On 09/20/2010 22:07, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote:
Janne Snabb sn...@epipe.com wrote:
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote:
One issue with either Git or Mercurial is that they are GPL.
AFAIK FreeBSD prefers to avoid GPL in the base or in critical
widely-used infrastructure if a
On 09/18/2010 07:17, Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote:
I'm still to see a concise, clear, precise, listing of advantages that
switching from CVS would bring us, that would overcome the effort
needed to do it (committers, users, infrastructure, tools).
1). http://bit.ly/d5UrtN
2).
On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 02:38:28 -0400
jhell jh...@dataix.net wrote:
On 09/18/2010 07:17, Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote:
I'm still to see a concise, clear, precise, listing of advantages
that switching from CVS would bring us,
that would overcome the effort needed to do it (committers, users,
On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 6:34 AM, Ion-Mihai Tetcu ite...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 02:38:28 -0400
jhell jh...@dataix.net wrote:
On 09/18/2010 07:17, Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote:
I'm still to see a concise, clear, precise, listing of advantages
that switching from CVS would bring
18 matches
Mail list logo
