[Asterisk-Dev] benevolent dictatorship, or inclusive developper community?

[Steven Critchfield]

On Thu, 2004-01-08 at 17:22, C. Maj wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Jan 2004, Tilghman Lesher waxed:
> 
> > On Thursday 08 January 2004 12:23, C. Maj wrote:
> > > On Thu, 8 Jan 2004, Steven Critchfield waxed:
> > > > On Thu, 2004-01-08 at 10:32, C. Maj wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, 7 Jan 2004, Chris Albertson waxed:
> > > > > > (see update command in cvs manpage). So, yes you could have
> > > > > > multiple lines of developmentand merge them back into a main
> > > > > > line.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yeah and live in a nightmare.  The kernel only uses CVS as a
> > > > > daily (or whatever) dump of what's in BitKeeper.  People
> > > > > submit patches against CVS, sure, but the "branching" is
> > > > > done with BK repositories.
> > > > >
> > > > >     http://www.bitkeeper.com/
> > > >
> > > > Well without dredging up the BK vs. every other revision control
> > > > software flame war, lets just point out that that wouldn't be a
> > > > viable option here.
> > >
> > > Point being the kernel doesn't use CVS, so it's apples and
> > > oranges.  You seemed to imply previously in this thread that
> > > the kernel worked like that and this is how branches or
> > > "mini forks" are created, through CVS.  My apologies if that
> > > was a glib interpretation of your comments.  I'm just trying
> > > to determine whether it is your lack of knowledge about BK
> > > that would lead you to suggest that it's not a viable option
> > > or something else.  Could you please explain ?
> > 
> > We have developers for Asterisk who have contributed to competing
> > source control projects.  Given the non-free nature of BK's license,
> > this would force those developers to purchase a BK license to
> > contribute to Asterisk.  You may like BK, but until its license stops
> > discriminating against who may use it freely, it's entirely
> > inappropriate to adopt its usage.
> 
> Spin that around and complain about the non-free nature of
> the Digium disclaimer.  Talk about discriminating.  But
> that's the only thing you would be forced to do.  BK can be
> used for open source projects with the free use BK license.
> Whether or not Digium would have to buy a different license,
> I don't know, but I don't think so.
> 
> It's a fine line because both Digium and BitMover have some
> funk in their licensing, trying to walk the line between
> free and proprietary.  IANAL, just looking for the best tool
> for the job here.

I wanted to avoid this worthless discussion. If any asterisk contributer
had contributed to CVS, RCS, Subversion, or anything else in the genre,
they are not allowed to use the free BK license. The Digium dual license
doesn't even need to be applied to cause trouble here. BK doesn't want
to give free licenses to people who compete. I'm not dinging BK on this,
it is just fact. We can all agree that we don't want to increase the
effort necessary to start contributing. Therefore BK is not appropriate
here. 
-- 
Steven Critchfield <critch at basesys.com>