Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 22 Oct 2002 16:28:56 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 22 Oct 2002 16:27:41 -0400 Received: from modemcable166.48-200-24.mtl.mc.videotron.ca ([24.200.48.166]:57069 "EHLO xanadu.home") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 22 Oct 2002 16:26:52 -0400 Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 16:32:54 -0400 (EDT) From: Nicolas Pitre X-X-Sender: nico@xanadu.home To: Allen Campbell cc: lkml Subject: Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new In-Reply-To: <20021022141336.A21184@const.> 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: 1232 Lines: 31 On Tue, 22 Oct 2002, Allen Campbell wrote: > On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 01:56:05PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > Therefore the only real lever you have against BitKeeper or whatever else is > > to write a GPL equivalent. Until it happens please assume that those who > > chose to use the tool they want are exercising their freedom since it was > > made certain that no one is forced into using BK for Linux development > > already. > > The ability to participate in Linux development without using BK > is not some benevolent gift, granted from on-high by Linus as a > favor to those who object to BK. It is assured by the GPL regardless > of some specific developers policy with regard to what tools are > used. No one had to "make certain that no one is forced." The > power to "force" doesn't exist. Whatever. So what's your own particular problem with BK again if you don't have to use it? I hope you still have the hability to write and contribute GPL'ed code. 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/