[darcs-users] [OT] Larry McVoy on the Bitkeeper licence

Karel Gardas kgardas at objectsecurity.com
Wed Feb 16 08:45:05 UTC 2005


On Tue, 15 Feb 2005, Tupshin Harper wrote:

> John Meacham wrote:
>
> >I am curious if anyone has asked Larry whether he would mine a
> >darcs-bitkeeper interoperability tool being written. If asked publicly
> >in the right way, mentioning that it would be bi-directional to support
> >syncing both ways I think he might allow it. Basically, there is no way
> >he could deny such a tool unless he thought people would use it to
> >migrate from BK to darcs (rather than the other-way round) hence
> >publicly admitting that he thinks darcs is better. He might try to say
> >'sorry, that is forbidden by the license' but he has said
> >that he intends to selectivly enforce the license, a public appeal might
> >convince him (or at least force him to be a bit more clear on what
> >is/isn't allowed) to allow just this tool.
> >        John
> >
> >
> >
> >
> His idea of interoperability is cvs. Anything like arch or darcs, he
> considers competition, and since any lossless interaction between the
> two would necessarily contain "bitkeeper proprietary information" (the
> dependency information), he would not support such an endeavor.
> Obviously, this is my conjecture since I haven't had this exact
> conversation with him. But based on my public and private discussion
> with him, I would be very surprised if you got any other answer.

I've read your emails about BK here, and since I'm just beginner, I still
don't understand your intention or needs to have full graph of version
available from BK. IMHO we just need _one_ line of development and that's
exactly what Linus pushes to his public BK repo. Am I wrong?

Thanks,
Karel
--
Karel Gardas                  kgardas at objectsecurity.com
ObjectSecurity Ltd.           http://www.objectsecurity.com





More information about the darcs-users mailing list