Re: BitKeeper
Peter Makholm <peter@makholm.net> writes:
> tb@becket.net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
>
> > 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".
>
> Thats not non-free in any way. The Freedom DFSG describes is not
> freedom for the developers but for the users and such restriction
> doesn't apply to ordinary users. The NPL (and MPL IIRC) has the same
> requirements.
OK, perhaps the relicensing rule is not non-free; I'm less sure of
that. But the outright prohibition of certain modifications certainly
kills it.
> > 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. :)
>
> Please don't even suggest such actions not even in jokes. It would be
> very sad to see Open Source fanatics use terorism to spread the use of
> open source.
1) Regardless of whether various legislatures have redefined the word
"terrorism" to include illegal breaking into computers, I don't
accede to their craziness. Wrong, perhaps, but not terrorism.
2) It's a joke. It would be very sad to see Open Source fanatics
begin to treat everything as so deadly serious.
Reply to: