From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 14 Oct 2002 02:43:37 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 14 Oct 2002 02:43:37 -0400 Received: from white-ippp0.koehntopp.de ([195.244.233.49]:8412 "EHLO white.koehntopp.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 14 Oct 2002 02:43:36 -0400 Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 08:49:22 +0200 From: Kristian Koehntopp To: Larry McVoy , Richard Stallman , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Bitkeeper outragem, old and new Message-ID: <20021014064922.GA16052@white.koehntopp.de> References: <20021013171840.B1011@work.bitmover.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20021013171840.B1011@work.bitmover.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.27i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Oct 13, 2002 at 05:18:40PM -0700, Larry McVoy wrote: > 3) If you had built a decent system instead of sitting around and whining, > we could be doing something else instead of sitting around listening > to your whining. Larry, rest assured that exactly this is happinging right now all over the world. You are not feeling the backlash now, because it takes time, but it will happen, and you made pretty much sure of that. You are pulling a Qt. By changing the license to BK to discourage development of BK alternatives you made sure that Subversion and other projects get plenty of new and highly motivated developers - you actually encouraged the development of BK alternatives just like the non-free license of Qt as the foundation of KDE spawned the Gnome project. The clock just started ticking and when we reevaluate this discussion in one or two years time, the complete strategic stupidity of this particular license change from BKs POV view will be evident. Kristian