| 1 |
On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 11:02:41PM +0100, Marius Mauch wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 01/25/04 James Harlow wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> > > "Gentoo Linux will never depend upon a piece of software unless |
| 5 |
> > > it conforms to the GNU General Public License, GNU Lesser |
| 6 |
> > > General Public License or some other license approved by the |
| 7 |
> > > Open Source Initiative (OSI.)" -- |
| 8 |
> > > http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/contract.xml |
| 9 |
> > > |
| 10 |
> > > I think we can cross Preforce/Bitkeeper off the list based on that. |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > Both p4 and BK can export to open-source formats, like CVS. The fact |
| 13 |
> > that some kernel developers (like linus) use bk, and other developers |
| 14 |
> > don't have to, suggests that Gentoo could do the same thing. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Does the kernel have a social contract ? |
| 17 |
> I'm not really biased to any of the options, but the discussion about |
| 18 |
> moving the forums from phpBB to a commercial product should be |
| 19 |
> considered in the decision as I expect the user reactions will be |
| 20 |
> simlilar. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> Marius |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
I see the forums as relatively peripherial and nonessential when |
| 26 |
compared to the kernel. While Gentoo doesn't, strictly speaking, depend |
| 27 |
on the forums, it does depend on the kernels provided. Managing them |
| 28 |
with a proprietary tool sends a very negative message. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Jon Portnoy |
| 32 |
avenj/irc.freenode.net |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives