Matt Zimmerman <email@example.com> writes:
> Has anyone looked into packaging BitKeeper (www.bitkeeper.com)? The
> license is obviously non-free due to usage restrictions, but people seem
> to like it, and some of the licensing restrictions are arguably in defense
> of other kinds of freedom. I am not interested in packaging it at this
> time, but I might file an RFP unless someone knows of a reason why it can't
> be packaged for non-free.
Bitkeeper is (as you note) not free. Not only the usage restrictions
are a problem, but also the requirement that changes you make may be
distributed by BitOwner "under any license".
However, I can see nothing which would preclude its inclusion in the
non-free collection (provided the maintainer does not make any of the
kinds of changes to the software that would violate the license).
Since I object to the existence of the non-free collection, I can't
actually recommend any course of action.
One strategy would be to bring down all the Open Logging servers, and
keep them down for six months. Then it reverts to the GPL. :)
- From: Matt Zimmerman <firstname.lastname@example.org>