> > Another problem is that bitkeeper has not been through a security audit.
>
> What sort of audit did you have in mind? It has been through several
> internal audits, so I'm not sure why you are claiming that it hasn't.
One by people other than the authors
> First of all, that "Linux ceases to be free software..." is a false statement,
> what tools you use to hack Linux in no way effect to license under which you
> get Linux, and I think you know that, Alan.
It affects peoples ability to contribute. Those who choose only to use free
software (such as the debian project) would be unable to contribute if that
was the only tool available.
> Second, I doubt very much that Linus would require BitKeeper only. It's
Im sure he wouldnt. And I really don't mind (and its none of my business either)
what he uses internally.
> I just have one question: can you tell me if you have actually read
> the BKL or are you just making up your mind that it is free or non free
> based on something else?
DFSG. Which nowdays seems to be the reference
Its nearly free software and as I've said, I understand the compromises you made
and why you needed to make them
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 15 2000 - 21:00:24 EST