From: jbradford@dial.pipex.com
Message-Id: <200210070524.g975O0D4000181@darkstar.example.net>
Subject: Re: New BK License Problem?
To: lm@bitmover.com (Larry McVoy)
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 06:24:00 +0100 (BST)
Cc: riel@conectiva.com.br, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
In-Reply-To: <20021006143330.S29486@work.bitmover.com> from "Larry McVoy" at Oct 06, 2002 02:33:30 PM
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1195
Lines: 21

> > > If we decided to GPL it, I don't see how it would make sense for us
> > > to do so for any reasonable price.
> > 
> > Not only that, but GPLing bitkeeper while you still have a large
> > TODO list seems like a bad thing for the software.
> 
> *Exactly*.  And don't forget the followon stuff like integrated bug tracking.
> That's not done yet either.  I wasn't pulling that $12M number out of thin
> air, it's very real.

I can quite believe that.  I wasn't thinking it was a practical suggestion straight away, but there are obviously people on this list who won't be happy until, either we stop using BK or it is GPLed, (OK, or put under another free license).

I am staying out of that argument, but if you're not entirely against the idea of, in a few years, trying to get a few large corporations to sponsor the opening of the source, that might satisfy a few people, and _maybe_, just _maybe_, put an end to this huge thread.  :-)

John.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/