| sean finney on Tue, 6 May 2003 12:26:08 -0400 |
|
On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 08:33:32AM -0400, Jeff Abrahamson wrote:
> On Mon, May 05, 2003 at 09:57:54AM -0400, gabriel rosenkoetter wrote:
> > [32 lines, 185 words, 1089 characters] Top characters: etoasnri
> >
> > On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 10:04:36PM -0400, Jeff Abrahamson wrote:
> > > Subversion has been getting a lot of press recently in the debian
> > > world as a CVS replacement
> >
> > But be wary of getting yelled at that BitKeeper is clearly superior
> > if you frequent lkm. ;^>
>
> But it's not free.
it's even worse than that. it's the pervasive "free as in free beer"
kind of free. anyone is free to use it, unless of course you have
or ever will plan on contributing to any other open source source
control management project, or plan on working for a company that makes,
sells, resells said software, or is otherwise in anyway considered
competition by bitmover, inc. a couple tidbits:
- hans reiser and co. were considering integrating versioning into
reiserfs. turns out if he did that, he could no longer use
bitkeeper to submit the changes to his source code at all. he
ended up deferring the project indefinitely iirc[1]
- ben collins, a subversion developer, was explicitly forbidden
from using bitkeeper for kernel development[2][3]
- pavel macheck, a kernel developer, was threatened with legal
action when he began a Free Software clone of bitkeeper[4]
sean
[1] can't find a link to this thread. it was a big project, and he had
all kinds of other projects for his fs, so he didn't seem too
particularly pissed about it.
[2] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=103384262016750&w=2
[3] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2002/debian-devel-announce-200210/msg00002.html
[4] http://kt.dlut.edu.cn/kernel-traffic/kt20030323_210.html#11
Attachment:
pgp7z08g6L3iK.pgp
|
|