juggling patches...

[Charles Wilson]

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
> control system.

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...

--Chuck