Alexandre Oliva writes: >They can always pay for the non-free license to get that, I suppose.
As far as I understand it, there are only non-free licences for Bitkeeper. For one you pay with money, for the other with freedom. While I am posting in this thread, I have a few questions to Larry McVoy: - You wrote that you could not develop Bitkeeper as free software, because it is economically not viable. You also write that you put the non-compete clause in the pay-with-freedom license, because you don't want to see a free clone of bitkeeper eat your business. So do you consider a free Bitkeeper-like system economically viable after all? - You say that all information is there, in the form of the patches. Could Bitkeeper reconstruct the Linux tree(s) from the patches alone? - anton -- M. Anton Ertl Some things have to be seen to be believed [EMAIL PROTECTED] Most things have to be believed to be seen http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
