This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: juggling patches...
Christopher Faylor wrote:
"arch"? As in Tom Lord's arch? *Shudder*
Maybe we should see if bitkeeper will donate some code to us. After all they
use cygwin for some of their stuff. Seems only fair.
Then we get reasonable people with reasonable support.
Perhaps even better, we could then have incessant discussions about the
fact that bitkeeper isn't free and we could cast aspersions on Larry
McVoy's character (inside joke for anyone who reads linux-kernel).
Hooo boy, you've stepped in it now. :-)
I think most folks who use/develop/understand cygwin will be more
accomodating to Larry's licensing terms than the l-k hackers are, given
the dual licensing nature of cygwin itself. You don't see a lot of
RMS-style license-vigelante-ism around here [it's GNU/Linux, dammit!
GPL or die! GNU/Cygwin! GNU/AIX! GNU/refridgerator! GNU/basketball!
(crap; now I've jinxed it.]
Anyway, one minor niggle: I, personally, am barred from using bitkeeper
for any purpose whatsoever.
Because I "maintain" the cygwin port of cvs. Even though I don't, and
would not, use bitkeeper to maintain that port. The same would be true
of Rob, if he began maintaining a cygwin port of arch, or subversion.
IMO, Larry's blanket ban on ANY free use of bitkeeper for those who
work/contribute to other source-management tools (hmm...source-navigator
_might_ fall into this category, too) is extreme, and hits wide of the
mark he's aiming for. He really just wants to prevent people from using
bitkeeper to develop competition TO bitkeeper. But he uses a
sledgehammer when a fly-swatter would do.
Personally, I agree with his goal (he has a right to profit from his
labor, and no obligation to assist his competition). I just wish he'd
use the appropriate flyswatter. But, it's his code, and he can do what
he wants with it. He can even give it away for free to everyone on
earth NOT named "Chuck" and I'd have no cause for complaint. It's his code.
BTW, [FUD warning; I am NOT sure of the following] isn't there a "no
free use on proprietary operating systems" clause in the bitkeeper
license? E.g. you can't run it (for free) under windows?