Re: bitkeeper
Larry McVoy (lm@bitmover.com)
Sun, 04 Oct 1998 11:10:19 -0600
Vladislav Malyshkin <mal@mail1.nai.net> asks:
:
: lm@bitmover.com (Larry McVoy) wrote:
:
: >OK, how about dogmatic? That work better? The deal is that some
: people
: >will (and are) chased away by the insistance on free software only.
: >Which is a shame. Given a choice between proprietary software and
: >free for free/money for money style software, which do you want?
: >Assuming that you, like me, would prefer to get more stuff for free,
: >it makes sense to encourage the compromise.
: >
:
: Larry,
:
: What do you think about GhostScript http://www.ghostscript.com
: licenses:
: One year old GhostScript version is GPL-ed,
: current version has a commertial license. In one year,
: when the next GhostScript version will be available - current
: version will be GPL-ed.
I might be willing to go for something along these lines. It would depend
on whether it would actually solve any of the license squabbles or if it
would just change the picture.
I already had something like this in mind to some extent, the idea of
making BitKeeper GPLed software if BitMover ever got bought, but maybe
this is better. Comments?
-
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/