> The new restrictions on Bitkeeper, saying that people who contribute
> to CVS or Subversion and even companies that distribute them cannot
> even run Bitkeeper, have sparked outrage. While these specific
> restrictions are new, their spirit fits perfectly with the previous
> Bitkeeper license.
I would think that if there were a list of people who shouldn't need to
be told "If you don't like licensing, build a better replacement", RMS
would be at the top of that list- After all, isn't that why GNU was
made?
The GNU foundation has given the world MANY good GPL'd replacement
software for plenty of unix utilities, a bunch of which have your name
on them. That's good, we're appreciative of that, but unfortunately,
none of those can do for the kernel what BK has been doing, as it's
advocates have said many times.
So, get out there and provide us with another quality replacement. You
of all people should know where to start.
-- < There is a light that shines on the frontier And maybe someday, We're gonna be there > <Rando Christensen> <rando@babblica.net> <software - http://babblica.net> <personal - http://digiwano.org> <monkeys - http://illuzionz.org> - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/