Re: bitkeeper

Alan Cox (alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk)
Sun, 4 Oct 1998 13:31:04 +0100 (BST)


> wrong with using development utils that are non free? If the license over
> affects us we can simply stop using it can't we? It's not like anything
> would require it to run.

Imagine if Linux Merced required a binary only compiler for windows to
build any application code, and that compiler was $5K a copy.

Thats why there is a problem. Bitkeeper btw isnt really anything like as
bad as that example. Bitkeeper is equivalent to having commercial C
compilers and free ones around (aka CVS in version control).

To me it is important I can build everything without needing commercial
tools.

Don't read this as an all negative - Larry has a very interesting license
plan, and from his description over lunch at Linux Expo some very powerful
tools. The notion of 'subscription' to software potentially gives you a
way to sell software created in an environment that has a high development
cost but without most of the strictures and mess. Its also a very old idea
that used to work well and died out.

Alan

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/