Re: [BK] upgrade will be needed

[Steven Rostedt]

On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 09:49 -0800, Larry McVoy wrote:
> On Monday 14 February 2005 09:14, Marcin Dalecki wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 09:23:03AM -0800, Russell Miller wrote:
> > It is certainly Larry's choice to license his software any way he chooses.
> > 
> > It is my choice whether or not to use it.
> 
> Yup, it is.  Always has been even for the kernel because of our hard
> work to make sure of that.  We respect your choices, please respect ours.

I believe that Larry and Bitmover are fine with what they are doing.
They have every right to license their product the way they want as long
as they give it out for free (as in beer).  The problem that many people
here have is that Linus and company have chosen BK as their SCM for
Linux.  The effort of all those that disapprove of BK should not be
directed at Larry, but at Linus and others to convince them that the BK
license is not appropriate for Linux, and to find something else. If
this is a problem because everything else that is Free Software is not
capable for Linux then development should be done to what is out there
to make it adequate to the Linux Kernel development needs. Even if this
includes those that develop it not use BK. But this doesn't stop those
that do use it in telling those that develop something else what they
would like to have.  No license can stop you from listing what you would
like of a SCM.

-- Steve


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/