This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: juggling patches...
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
>>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.
>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
>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.