[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [Linux-cluster] Subversion?



Daniel Phillips wrote:

Sources.redhat.com not only consists entirely of free software, but shows leadership to the free software community. We[1] are interested in advancing not only our own projects, but other open source projects such as Subversion and Arch.

[1] Presumptively speaking for what I presume is the majority.

I wholeheartedly agree with these statements, and if using Free Software projects to advance your own is the right decision then I fully support it. I just don't like to see decisions made using inaccurate, politicized arguments.


In this case, you are far better off (IMO) to say "We won't use BitKeeper because it is not open source", rather than to rely on arguments about its licensing model. It's likely that even if the binary-only free use license for BitKeeper came with _no_ restrictions whatsoever, it still would not be your choice for an SCM, because it is not open source.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]