Re: BitBucket: GPL-ed *notrademarkhere* clone

[Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com>]

H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Followup to:  <3E616224.6040003@pobox.com>
> By author:    Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com>
> In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
> 
>>You're missing the point:
>>
>>A BK exporter is useful.  A BK clone is not.
>>
> 
> 
> I disagree.  A BK clone would almost certainly be highly useful.  The
> fact that it would happen to be compatible with one particular
> proprietary tool released by one particular company doesn't change
> that fact one iota; in fact, some people might find value in using the
> proprietary tool for whatever reason (snazzy GUI, keeping the suits
> happy, who knows...)


While people would certainly use it, I can't help but think that a BK 
clone would damage other open source SCM efforts.  I call this the 
"SourceForge Syndrome":

	Q. I found a problem/bug/annoyance, how do I solve it?
	A. Clearly, a brand new sourceforge project is called for.

My counter-question is, why not improve an _existing_ open source SCM to 
read and write BitKeeper files?  Why do we need yet another brand new 
project?

AFAICS, a BK clone would just further divide resources and mindshare.  I 
personally _want_ an open source SCM that is as good as, or better, than 
BitKeeper.  The open source world needs that, and BitKeeper needs the 
competition.  A BK clone may work with BitKeeper files, but I don't see 
it ever being as good as BK, because it will always be playing catch-up.

	Jeff