Recent Features
| |||||||||||||
The BitKeeper non-compete clauseThe BitKeeper non-compete clausePosted Oct 11, 2002 14:54 UTC (Fri) by kunitz (subscriber, #3965)Parent article: The BitKeeper non-compete clause It's not helpfull in the long term, that the development on the Linux kernel is depending on the success of Lary McVoy's company. I find it more and more dangerous, that open-source starts to depend on centralized infrastructure like Source Forge or the Bitkeeper open-logging server. I wait for the day this infrastructure will be ICANNized. I would argue for a formal contract between the Linux community (Linux International) and BitMover Inc. This contract should define, what happens if "free" Bitkeeper-Licensing will be terminated or changed and how interoperability with current and future open-source SCM projects can be supported. This contract should be based on the fact, that BitMover wins high product awareness and market penetration by the application of BitKeeper for Linux kernel development.
(Log in to post comments)
|
|||||||||||||