This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the Cygwin project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: juggling patches...

Christopher Faylor wrote:

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.

Are you sure about this?  I know that people in Red Hat are using
bitkeeper and Red Hat, the company, maintains a CVS package.  And, an
RCS package, and...  I thought you had to be *developing* a source
control system.

Judging by some of the comments (from Larry) over the past year of l-k use, the definitive answer is: maybe.

It depends on how Larry feels about what a given individual is doing, at the specific time. Depending on the phase of the moon.

It's just better (for me) to not go there.

Maybe, but again, if I was serious, I'd be looking for special
dispensation from bitmover anyway.  Hmm.  Maybe I should change the
license terms on cygwin to a "Can't be used in the installation non GPLed
software".  That'd get 'em.

Heh. And you thought the flamewars on l-k were bad...

But really, I agree with Larry's goals too.  He explains himself very
eloquently and, while some would disagree, I think he maintains his cool
pretty well in the light of all of the incredible criticism he receives.

Yes, I would have blown a gasket after the first ingrate complained about the terms under which I was giving away my software.

Wait a minute...


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]