kernel ftp ?
hozer at drgw.net
Tue Jul 24 02:44:33 EST 2001
On Mon, Jul 23, 2001 at 08:38:10AM -0700, Larry McVoy wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2001 at 11:44:02AM +0200, Zehetbauer Thomas wrote:
> > [BK flame]
> Thomas, sorry you feel that way. List, if you have any questions about
> our take on Thomas' statements, some of which we feel are inaccurate,
> contact me privately.
Thomas does have some valid points.
Larry, I also understand why you can't release Bitkeeper as 'free
software'. Please understand that we, as a community of free software
developers can NOT become dependent on any non-free software.
Most of us doing development are using BK because it works better.
However, Not providing access to the source via rsync or some other less
efficient protocol with a 'free software' implementation would be more
than a bit hypocritical.
Let's please end this discussion and any bitkeeper advocacy/disadvocacy.
(I think most people would be happy to discuss this again if either BK is
released under a license that meets the debian free software guidelines,
or another 'free' implementation is developed that allows pulls and
Troy Benjegerdes | master of mispeeling | 'da hozer' | hozer at drgw.net
-----"If this message isn't misspelled, I didn't write it" -- Me -----
"Why do musicians compose symphonies and poets write poems? They do it
because life wouldn't have any meaning for them if they didn't. That's
why I draw cartoons. It's my life." -- Charles Shulz
** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
More information about the Linuxppc-dev