Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 7 Oct 2002 16:18:33 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 7 Oct 2002 16:18:33 -0400 Received: from modemcable166.48-200-24.mtl.mc.videotron.ca ([24.200.48.166]:42116 "EHLO xanadu.home") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 7 Oct 2002 16:18:32 -0400 Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 16:24:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Nicolas Pitre X-X-Sender: nico@xanadu.home To: Alan Cox cc: Pavel Machek , Ulrich Drepper , Larry McVoy , lkml Subject: Re: New BK License Problem? In-Reply-To: <1034021987.26503.24.camel@irongate.swansea.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1174 Lines: 26 On 7 Oct 2002, Alan Cox wrote: > On Mon, 2002-10-07 at 20:06, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > If BK migrates to proprietary format everybody will notice and you'll still > > have the opportunity to rescue a not too old repository and carry on with > > life using whatever alternate SCM you wish. If such a thing happened Lary > > would be publicly and universally discredited and he's not looking for that > > I'm sure. > > If BK migrates to a proprietary format the code won't be in the > preferred form of the work for making modifications. Because you think BK will still have the backing of all kernel developers using it today if that happens? Some might find BK's nice to use despite its license, but locking the main kernel repository into a proprietary format is totally unacceptable for most if not all of them I'm sure. That's why Larry won't go that route or he'll lose the Linux kernel user base right away. Nicolas - 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/