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.
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.