From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 14 Oct 2002 12:33:41 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 14 Oct 2002 12:33:41 -0400 Received: from netcore.fi ([193.94.160.1]:28164 "EHLO netcore.fi") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 14 Oct 2002 12:33:38 -0400 Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 19:39:28 +0300 (EEST) From: Pekka Savola To: Kristian Koehntopp cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Bitkeeper outragem, old and new Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Oct 13, 2002 at 05:18:40PM -0700, Larry McVoy wrote: > > 3) If you had built a decent system instead of sitting around and whining, > > we could be doing something else instead of sitting around listening > > to your whining. > > Larry, rest assured that exactly this is happinging right now > all over the world. You are not feeling the backlash now, > because it takes time, but it will happen, and you made pretty > much sure of that. > > You are pulling a Qt. By changing the license to BK to > discourage development of BK alternatives you made sure that > Subversion and other projects get plenty of new and highly > motivated developers - you actually encouraged the development > of BK alternatives just like the non-free license of Qt as the > foundation of KDE spawned the Gnome project. > > The clock just started ticking and when we reevaluate this > discussion in one or two years time, the complete strategic > stupidity of this particular license change from BKs POV view > will be evident. I agree 100%; I'll just add one word: OpenSSH -- Pekka Savola "Tell me of difficulties surmounted, Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall" Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords