juggling patches...

[Charles Wilson]

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. :-)

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.

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?

--Chuck