| 1 |
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 10:15:26PM -0500, Jon Portnoy wrote: |
| 2 |
> A significant number of devs and users would be fairly likely to depart |
| 3 |
> if we were relying on bitkeeper. The license terms are _highly_ |
| 4 |
> authoritarian and controversial. I refuse to deal with the mess (and |
| 5 |
> nasty PR) it would leave, personally. |
| 6 |
I'm suggesting BK only for keeping the kernel trees managable. Users |
| 7 |
will not see them in any form as they will only ever be downloading |
| 8 |
tarballs/patches from the gentoo mirrors. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
The upstream linux kernel itself is already in BK, so the point of users |
| 11 |
caring about something coming from BK isn't really valid. If the |
| 12 |
developers working on the kernel have no objections to trying BK, it |
| 13 |
could at least be given a chance for testing. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
The only really nasty license terms are 3.d. and 3.e. (which are |
| 16 |
basically that you can't develop a competitor to BK and use BK). |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
-- |
| 19 |
Robin Hugh Johnson |
| 20 |
E-Mail : robbat2@××××××××××××××.net |
| 21 |
Home Page : http://www.orbis-terrarum.net/?l=people.robbat2 |
| 22 |
ICQ# : 30269588 or 41961639 |
| 23 |
GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85 |
Archives