[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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: