|| ||Roman Zippel <zippel-AT-linux-m68k.org>|
|| ||Theodore Ts'o <tytso-AT-mit.edu>|
|| ||Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto|
|| ||Wed, 9 Feb 2005 03:05:18 +0100 (CET)|
|| ||Larry McVoy <lm-AT-bitmover.com>, Stelian Pop <stelian-AT-popies.net>,
Francois Romieu <romieu-AT-fr.zoreil.com>,
On Tue, 8 Feb 2005, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> I don't know how many years it was before people decided to
> give up on the emacs vs. vi wars, but can we please put a more hasty
> end to the bk license flamewars? Many thanks,
It's not really the same, if it would be just about personal preferences,
I would be the first to shut up (unless someone buys the beer :) ).
If people want to use bk because it does the job for them, I'm happy
The current problem is more serious and I want that bk users to understand
that. A large part of kernel history is currently practically locked into
bk. bk isn't doing what I need, so naturally I'm looking for alternatives,
but I don't have the freedom to take my data and try it with some other
tool. Was that really part of the deal when bk was introduced that I'm
denied of this freedom?
If bk users think this alright, I'd really like to hear from them how this
fits into a free software project. With every other free software project
it's possible to just take the data and import into something else, why
isn't this possible with Linux?
to post comments)