Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 12:14 AM 9/6/00 -0400, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> >Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > > The decisions should be based on technical merit and general availability.
> >
> >I would include "available under a free software license" as part of the
> >definition of "general availability".
> You would, but in this case I don't. We can give anyone we want a client
> and get them access to the repository.
You can give people a client, but it may not be something they are
able to use.
I do understand the concern from the other side---that the technology of
perforce is better. My point is that even if the technology is better, some
people will be alienated by a proprietary software source revision system.
I am not in a position to really influence the decision one way or the
other; I just wanted to voice my concern that I (and others with my beliefs)
will have to be a second-class perl6 developer if proprietary software tools
are required to be a first-class perl6 developer.
--
Bradley M. Kuhn - http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn
PGP signature
