On Thu, Sep 14, 2000 at 10:56:17PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> [security audit]
> One by people other than the authors
That's OK by me, nobody is stopping anyone from doing that. I'd welcome it.
> [non-free tools means Linux is not free]
>
> It affects peoples ability to contribute. Those who choose only to use free
> software (such as the debian project) would be unable to contribute if that
> was the only tool available.
Nobody is proposing that BK is the only tool people could use. The PPC kernel
folks have been using BK and then running "bk export -tpatch" to send Linus
patches. It has been working for quite some time. "bk import -tpatch" works
too.
> > I just have one question: can you tell me if you have actually read
> > the BKL or are you just making up your mind that it is free or non free
> > based on something else?
>
> DFSG. Which nowdays seems to be the reference
So in other words, you are saying "BK is not free" and you haven't even
read the license. That's pretty lame, if true. You ought to at least
read it.
A surprising number of formerly disagreeing people read the license
and decide it's actually pretty cool. We put a lot of thought into
protecting your rights. Did you know that if BitMover goes out of
business BK becomes GPLed? Did you know if we stop maintaining the
openlogging servers, BK becomes GPLed? Did you know that single user
repositories require neither money or the logging (and you can make
multiple people appear as one)? Do you know that we routinely grant
waivers to people who have legit needs for !openlogging but no money?
-- --- Larry McVoy lm@bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 15 2000 - 21:00:24 EST