Re: juggling patches...

[Christopher Faylor <cgf at redhat dot com>]

On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 09:28:04PM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote:
>
>
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
>>"arch"?  As in Tom Lord's arch?  *Shudder*
>>
>>Maybe we should see if bitkeeper will donate some code to us.  After all 
>>they
>>use cygwin for some of their stuff.  Seems only fair.
>>
>>Then we get reasonable people with reasonable support.
>>
>>Perhaps even better, we could then have incessant discussions about the
>>fact that bitkeeper isn't free and we could cast aspersions on Larry
>>McVoy's character (inside joke for anyone who reads linux-kernel).
>
>Hooo boy, you've stepped in it now. :-)

Yeah, yeah, I know.

>I think most folks who use/develop/understand cygwin will be more 
>accomodating to Larry's licensing terms than the l-k hackers are, given 
>the dual licensing nature of cygwin itself.  You don't see a lot of 
>RMS-style license-vigelante-ism around here [it's GNU/Linux, dammit! 
>GPL or die!  GNU/Cygwin!  GNU/AIX!  GNU/refridgerator!  GNU/basketball! 
>... ]
>
>(crap; now I've jinxed it.]
>
>Anyway, one minor niggle: I, personally, am barred from using bitkeeper 
>for any purpose whatsoever.
>
>why?
>
>Because I "maintain" the cygwin port of cvs.  Even though I don't, and 
>would not, use bitkeeper to maintain that port.  The same would be true 
>of Rob, if he began maintaining a cygwin port of arch, or subversion.

Are you sure about this?  I know that people in Red Hat are using
bitkeeper and Red Hat, the company, maintains a CVS package.  And, an
RCS package, and...  I thought you had to be *developing* a source
control system.

>IMO, Larry's blanket ban on ANY free use of bitkeeper for those who 
>work/contribute to other source-management tools (hmm...source-navigator 
>_might_ fall into this category, too) is extreme, and hits wide of the 
>mark he's aiming for.  He really just wants to prevent people from using 
>bitkeeper to develop competition TO bitkeeper.  But he uses a 
>sledgehammer when a fly-swatter would do.
>
>Personally, I agree with his goal (he has a right to profit from his 
>labor, and no obligation to assist his competition).  I just wish he'd 
>use the appropriate flyswatter.  But, it's his code, and he can do what 
>he wants with it.  He can even give it away for free to everyone on 
>earth NOT named "Chuck" and I'd have no cause for complaint.  It's his code.
>
>BTW, [FUD warning; I am NOT sure of the following] isn't there a "no 
>free use on proprietary operating systems" clause in the bitkeeper 
>license?  E.g. you can't run it (for free) under windows?

Maybe, but again, if I was serious, I'd be looking for special
dispensation from bitmover anyway.  Hmm.  Maybe I should change the
license terms on cygwin to a "Can't be used in the installation non GPLed
software".  That'd get 'em.

But really, I agree with Larry's goals too.  He explains himself very
eloquently and, while some would disagree, I think he maintains his cool
pretty well in the light of all of the incredible criticism he receives.

cgf