On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 09:20:37AM +0100, Keith Whitwell wrote: > Larry McVoy wrote: > >Over time we have a plan to make this go away. The main reason that > >there have been license issues is that we had a goal to give the latest > >and greatest out for free, that's how we could help open source the most. > >All the other companies give you an old buggy version or a stripped down > >(no GUIs or whatever) version, etc. We really wanted to give our best > >out for free but that meant we had to protect our IP more than those > >other companies. > > > >We've heard that people would rather have better licensing terms than > >more features so we've forked the tree and when the commercial version > >is sufficiently ahead of the free version we'll revise the license to > >be something that people like or at least can live with. > > Speaking personally, that sounds great, especially if developers using the > free & not-quite-so-free versions can work together seemlessly. Even a > BK-lite seems like a big step forward from cvs.
Until this happens, I share Michel's position. BitKeeper licensing terms have changed too often and in strange ways. IMHO, the disadvantages inherent to the vendor lock-in far exceed the (unarguable) technical advatanges BitKeeper has over CVS, especially when considering the option to use other free alternatives. Jose Fonseca ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
