A few points:
1. Bitkeeper is proprietary software from a company which plans to earn
revenue. There's nothing wrong with using proprietary software to help
build nonproprietary software; after all, even people with purely free
systems on the software side are still using proprietary hardware (Intel
chips, etc.) We should choose the tools that make the most sense for us to
use.
2. Bitkeeper's license is designed so that we can pay either in privacy
or dollars. Since our development is already transparent by design, paying
in privacy doesn't seem to reveal anything we're not already revealing and
is cheaper. But if we'd rather pay dollars, Bitmover will accept our
money.
3. There are factors other than license to consider. While Bitkeeper
looks like a better design on paper, it does not have the longevity and
popularity of CVS. In fact, it only recently received its first public
release. My personal bias is to adopt technology later rather than
earlier, after other people have done the work smoothing out rough edges.
As an aside, I'd expect Larry McVoy to be personally disappointed if
concern about the license caused Wine to not adopt Bitkeeper. I'm much
more concerned about confusing all the existing developers who know CVS
and don't know Bitkeeper. The license issue can be dealt with, either by
convincing the community that open logging is not a problem, convincing
Bitmover to make an exception for us, or (heaven forbid) paying for using
Bitkeeper.
doug.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]