Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263990AbTGRU3L (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Jul 2003 16:29:11 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S270359AbTGRU3L (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Jul 2003 16:29:11 -0400 Received: from nat-pool-bos.redhat.com ([66.187.230.200]:41193 "EHLO chimarrao.boston.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263990AbTGRU3K (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Jul 2003 16:29:10 -0400 Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 16:44:02 -0400 (EDT) From: Rik van Riel X-X-Sender: riel@chimarrao.boston.redhat.com To: Shawn cc: Richard Stallman , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: Bitkeeper In-Reply-To: <1058560325.2662.31.camel@localhost> 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: 779 Lines: 23 On 18 Jul 2003, Shawn wrote: > To add to this, why? That's a good question indeed. > I don't mean to jump on anyone, but so long as someone can pull all the > BK data out You're right. There is no data lock-in, so there is no reason at all why we (FSVO "we") would even need a free alternative to Bitkeeper. People who really care about Bitkeeper being non-free can work towards making a free alternative. Some people are doing exactly that (I bet you won't see them in this thread though, they're too busy doing useful stuff). - 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/