On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 08:02:37PM +0100, Ivan Voras wrote: > On 24 January 2011 19:31, Diane Bruce <d...@db.net> wrote: > > > As long as it is not GPL. > > Unless there's a missing smiley in that sentence there, it is a tough
IRL I'm known to be very dry humoured, I am deadly in e-mail or IRC. > requirement. Of the major SCMs, only Subversion is non-GPL-ed (even QED > CVS is...). CVS is/was dual licenced. There is also the work openbsd started with CVS sometime ago. Given the work that is being done on clang/llvm to get a non GPL compiler into the tree, perhaps efforts would be better spent on finding SCMs that were also non GPL. There certainly would not be a chance of putting mercurial or git into base for example. Perhaps a point to consider. - Diane -- - d...@freebsd.org d...@db.net http://www.db.net/~db _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
