Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+willy=40w.ods.org@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id <S263377AbSJJVOt>; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 17:14:49 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S263589AbSJJVOt>; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 17:14:49 -0400
Received: from [195.39.17.254] ([195.39.17.254]:8452 "EHLO Elf.ucw.cz")
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id <S263377AbSJJVOs>;
	Thu, 10 Oct 2002 17:14:48 -0400
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 23:19:24 +0200
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
To: Troy Benjegerdes <hozer@hozed.org>, Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com>,
       Hans Reiser <reiser@namesys.com>, walt <wa1ter@hotmail.com>,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: New BK License Problem?
Message-ID: <20021010231924.A211@elf.ucw.cz>
References: <fa.fl3olav.51slo1@ifi.uio.no> <fa.chp9htv.i4632g@ifi.uio.no> <3D9EF779.4000906@hotmail.com> <3D9F10EB.80207@namesys.com> <20021005102822.C835@work.bitmover.com> <20021006174345.GE878@altus.drgw.net> <20021006105821.L29486@work.bitmover.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20021006105821.L29486@work.bitmover.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i
X-Warning: Reading this can be dangerous to your mental health.
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1596
Lines: 48

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?
-
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/