Re: New BK License Problem?

Pavel Machek
2002-10-10T21:14:49Z

Hi!

> It's worth noting that the kernel's use of BK has and will continue to
> expose either weaknesses in BK or missing features. We already know
> of enough things that need engineering for the kernel (and any other
> kernel sized project) to keep us busy for a couple of years. If we
> GPLed BK today it would do two things:
>
> 1) make you stop yelling at us
> 2) stop BK development

And

3) make me use it.

and

4) have widely-usable CVS replacement.

> It costs a lot of money to do what we are doing, we know exactly how
> much, and a GPLed answer won't support those costs. We have to do
> what

Even if *you* stopped developping bitkeeper, there would be plenty of
other people to develop it, into way better product.

If you don't think GPLed bitkeeper can not be developed, then I do not
know why you are trying to kill subversion.

Aha, you addressed that:

> The reason we don't want to help our competitors is that they want
> to imitate us. That's fine on the surface, a GPLed clone solves the
> immediate problems you see, but it doesn't address how to solve the next
> generation of problems. You'd need a team of at least 6-8 senior
> kernel

By the time it takes to clone you you should have "next generation"
ready. If not, then you are doing something wrong.

Pavel
--
When do you have heart between your knees?