Re: Petition Against Official Endorsement of BitKeeper by Linux Maintainers

[Andreas Dilger <adilger@clusterfs.com>]

On Thu, Mar 07, 2002 at 05:39:21PM -0800, Stephen Samuel wrote:
> note: this solution DOES NOT PRECLUDE YOU (or anybody else) FROM
> USING BITKEEPER (or any other proprietary solution) in the privacy of
> your office and/or home -- even if you want to do Linux development
> with it.  It's simply about what occurs in the OFFICIAL Linux kernel
> code tree, which probably has a reasonably high proportion of people
> who are both politically and financially sensitive to the idea of
> being almost required to use an closed source product to work on
> their open source 'baby'.

Do you even know what you are talking about?  It is clear you don't.

1) You do NOT need to buy BK to use it on any open-source project,
   as long as you are willing to have the changelogs posted on the
   BK website.  Since most open-source projects host their entire
   CVS repository on a public website, this isn't any additional
   restriction.

2) Nobody is forcing anyone to use BK to contribute to the kernel.  The
   kernel is still available as a tarball and incremental patches.  Linus
   is still accepting patches in email just like he always did (or didn't,
   as the case may be).

Cheers, Andreas
--
Andreas Dilger  \ "If a man ate a pound of pasta and a pound of antipasto,
                 \  would they cancel out, leaving him still hungry?"
http://www-mddsp.enel.ucalgary.ca/People/adilger/               -- Dogbert