On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 19:07:17 -0700 per...@pluto.rain.com wrote: > Janne Snabb <sn...@epipe.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, 20 Sep 2010, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote: > > > One issue with either Git or Mercurial is that they are GPL. > > > AFAIK FreeBSD prefers to avoid GPL in the base or in critical > > > widely-used infrastructure if a viable non-GPL alternative > > > exists. > > > > The project currently uses Perforce for many sub-projects, > > so using GPL licenced solution could hardly be a problem. > > According to the "General Information" table here: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_revision_control_software > Perforce is not GPL -- it is proprietary (but "Free ... for OSS > development"). Thus the fact that FreeBSD currently uses Perforce > tells us nothing about the acceptability of a GPL licensed solution. > (Ditto for SVN, which -- as someone already pointed out -- is not > GPL either.) > > There are two distributed, BSD-licensed VCS listed on that page: > Codeville and Fossil. Both are in ports, but Codeville has been > proposed for removal as it seems no longer to be under active > development. That leaves Fossil as a possibly-viable BSD-licensed > alternative to Mercurial. (Of course, there may be others that > aren't listed on that particular Wikipedia page.)
Keeping the original recipients when replying (all of them not only To:) would be greatly appreciated (and it's required by the list charted). Thanks, -- IOnut - Un^d^dregistered ;) FreeBSD "user" "Intellectual Property" is nowhere near as valuable as "Intellect" FreeBSD committer -> ite...@freebsd.org, PGP Key ID 057E9F8B493A297B
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
