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:
quoted
[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
clones.)
--
Troy Benjegerdes | master of mispeeling | 'da hozer' | hozer@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/