change 'bitkeeper, is open source' to 'bitkeeper, has the source code
available, including provisions to allow you to modify it (as long as the
openlogging isn't removed'
David Lang
On 5 Mar 2002, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Date: 5 Mar 2002 15:14:19 -0800
> From: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
> To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [opensource] Re: Petition Against Official Endorsement of
> BitKeeper by Linux Maintainers
>
> Followup to: <20020305230143.GB5538@matchmail.com>
> By author: Mike Fedyk <mfedyk@matchmail.com>
> In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
> >
> > IIRC, bitkeeper, is open source. It just doesn't have a free license. I
> > could be wrong(I haven't checked). If I am, someone will say so...
> >
>
> A free license is a necessary, but not sufficient, requirement for
> something to be Open Source.
>
> -hpa
> --
> <hpa@transmeta.com> at work, <hpa@zytor.com> in private!
> "Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."
> http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt <amsp@zytor.com>
> -
> 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/
>
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 07 2002 - 21:00:49 EST