Re: Warning to Debian Developers regarding BitKeeper
On Sun, Oct 06, 2002 at 08:45:58AM +1000, Brian May wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 05, 2002 at 11:18:10PM +0200, Russell Coker wrote:
> > So does this mean that ALL Debian developers are banned from using BitKeeper?
> Some interesting quotes (hopefully not quoted out of context;
> read the origional thread to be sure) from the thread:
> Larry: "Distributions do not *SELL* CVS, they distribute CVS."
> email@example.com: "Of course they [redhat] sell CVS. I give them money,
> they give me a CD, that CD has CVS on it."
> Larry says in response "We're not changing the wording in the license
> just because you have a problem with it. Unless some lawyer wants to
> explain to me why this wording doesn't do what I want it to do, and
> unless I actually believe they are operating in the best interests of
> BitMover, the language stands as it is.
You want another example of Larry changing his mind in a mere two days?
"The clause is specifically designed to target those companies which
produce or sell commercial SCM systems. That's why we explicitly left
out "distribute". *The open source developers have nothing to worry
about*." (emphasis by me)
(Replying to Ben Collins on whether he could still use BK or not because
of this license change)
On Sat, Oct 05, 2002 at 01:54:37PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> Larry, I develop for the Subversion project. Does that mean my license
> to use bitkeeper is revoked?
Yes. It has been since we shipped that license or when you started
working on Subversion, whichever came last.
-- snip --
Well, either Subversion is no longer free, or McVoy blatantly lies^W
changes his mind in less than 24 hours.
Carlos Laviola < firstname.lastname@example.org >
Debian GNU/Linux <http://www.debian.org>