[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       darcs-users
Subject:    Re: [darcs-users] [OT] Larry McVoy on the Bitkeeper licence
From:       David Roundy <droundy () abridgegame ! org>
Date:       2005-02-16 13:42:05
Message-ID: 20050216134200.GD20246 () abridgegame ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 09:31:01PM +0100, Tomasz Zielonka wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 08:20:57PM +0100, Ketil Malde wrote:
> > Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@pps.jussieu.fr> writes:
> > 
> > >> What [Larry McVoy] looks most affraid of is someone
> > >> copying/reverse enginering BK.
> > 
> > > What he's afraid of is someone producing a free alternative to BK.
> > > What better way to remove thousands of free software programmers from
> > > the pool of potential Darcs and Arch hackers?
> > 
> > Ironically, if it weren't for the exorbitant licensing requirements,
> > we'd probably all be using BK now.  (Well, at least there's a fair
> > chance that I would.)
> 
> I think I would still rather use darcs :)
> 
> Unless what you want to say is that there would be no darcs if BK had
> other licensing conditions? I don't think so. David?

If BK had been free software, I'm sure I would have tried it, and if I had
liked it (which probably would have been the case--I didn't start out as a
connoisseur of SCM systems), I definitely wouldn't have created darcs.  As
it was, I tried arch instead (after being dissatisfied with cvs), and it
was only after using arch for a while and getting frustrated with it that I
decided to work on darcs.
-- 
David Roundy
http://www.darcs.net


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]