This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: juggling patches...
Christopher Faylor wrote:
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
Judging by some of the comments (from Larry) over the past year of l-k
use, the definitive answer is: maybe.
It depends on how Larry feels about what a given individual is doing, at
the specific time. Depending on the phase of the moon.
It's just better (for me) to not go there.
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.
Heh. And you thought the flamewars on l-k were bad...
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.
Yes, I would have blown a gasket after the first ingrate complained
about the terms under which I was giving away my software.
Wait a minute...