From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 13 Oct 2002 22:15:54 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 13 Oct 2002 22:15:54 -0400 Received: from xanthor.net ([64.215.178.124]:11218 "HELO xanthor.net") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Sun, 13 Oct 2002 22:15:53 -0400 Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 17:43:07 -0600 From: Rando Christensen To: rms@gnu.org Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Bitkeeper outragem, old and new Message-Id: <20021013174307.11681d47.rando@babblica.net> In-Reply-To: References: Organization: Babblica X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.2claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; ) digiw00tX: v1.0 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Sun, 13 Oct 2002 18:48:22 -0400: Richard Stallman (Richard Stallman ): > 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 >