[lkml]   [2002]   [Oct]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: New BK License Problem?

> It's worth noting that the kernel's use of BK has and will continue to
> expose either weaknesses in BK or missing features. We already know
> of enough things that need engineering for the kernel (and any other
> kernel sized project) to keep us busy for a couple of years. If we
> GPLed BK today it would do two things:
> 1) make you stop yelling at us
> 2) stop BK development


3) make me use it.


4) have widely-usable CVS replacement.

> It costs a lot of money to do what we are doing, we know exactly how
> much, and a GPLed answer won't support those costs. We have to do
> what

Even if *you* stopped developping bitkeeper, there would be plenty of
other people to develop it, into way better product.

If you don't think GPLed bitkeeper can not be developed, then I do not
know why you are trying to kill subversion.

Aha, you addressed that:

> The reason we don't want to help our competitors is that they want
> to imitate us. That's fine on the surface, a GPLed clone solves the
> immediate problems you see, but it doesn't address how to solve the next
> generation of problems. You'd need a team of at least 6-8 senior
> kernel

By the time it takes to clone you you should have "next generation"
ready. If not, then you are doing something wrong.

When do you have heart between your knees?
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:29    [W:0.076 / U:2.184 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site