Tom Lane wrote:
> Christopher Browne <cbbrowne@acm.org> writes:
> > Oops! reinoud.v@n.leeuwen.net (Reinoud van Leeuwen) was seen spray-painting on a wall:
> >> Why? I understood that using BitKeeper for free for Open Source projects
> >> is allowed. (but IANAL).
>
> > Ah, but there's a problem with BK _actually seen in production_ in
> > that people that work on competing products are not permitted to use
> > it.
>
> In particular, I would have to resign from the project if we went over
> to BK, as my employer (Red Hat) is affected by this restriction. BK
> does not meet the accepted definition of Open Source because of this
> unfriendly license clause.
How do the Linux kernel developer guys go from no revision system (just
Linus's hard drive) to Bitkeeper and requring a signed authorization
letter from each contributor? They went from too little to too much,
and never hit the happy medium.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073