|
The kernel and BitKeeper part waysThe kernel and BitKeeper part waysPosted Apr 7, 2005 10:04 UTC (Thu) by wookey (subscriber, #5501)Parent article: The kernel and BitKeeper part ways
Well, an interesting development. Who was the individual who refused to stop reverse engineering, I wonder?
I always refused to use BK because I didn't like the license (especially the 'no work on competing products' - that was the point at which I decided I was never going to use it). I have been involved in a couple of projects where there were strong network incentives to use BK (e.g. Openembedded), and I even do a bit of kernel hacking occaisionally. I was never very happy about the way this non-free software was becoming embedded in community development. I'm glad to see that period is over (well, hopefully), and I hope lessons are learned.
So I shall sit back and feel slightly smug and pure today :-) I didn't violate anyone's licenses and can claim to have been 'right all along', albeit somewhat incovenienced along the way.
(Log in to post comments)
The kernel and BitKeeper part ways Posted Apr 7, 2005 14:18 UTC (Thu) by farnz (subscriber, #17727) [Link] The version of events I've heard from the rumour mill is as follows:
Of course, this is all rumour, and backed up with as much evidence as you'd expect from rumour.
The kernel and BitKeeper part ways Posted Apr 7, 2005 16:02 UTC (Thu) by daniel (subscriber, #3181) [Link] If true, would it mean that Andrew can now go full time on his reverse engineering work, for the purpose of, say, importing the BitKeeper graph into Bazzzr-ng?
|
Copyright © 2008, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds
Powered by Rackspace Managed Hosting.