BitKeeper licence critic // was ... license critic

[MJ Ray]

MJ Ray <markj at cloaked.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> This seems to be where the smart money is right now, from people I know. 
> What features does BitKeeper have that are needed to be added to subversion?

To answer my own question after digging Kernel Traffic [1] for a bit, it
seems that a more peer-to-peer operation is the main difference.  From
reviewing the links, I think Aegis is a better fit for this type of
development, but again I wonder why bk is the preferred choice.  There are
also active supporters of Aegis on lkml, but they don't seem to be as, erm,
"aggressive" as bk's developers.  He reminds me of someone, not just in the
"lm" signature. ;_)

1. http://kt.zork.net/

During the original discussion[2][3], the argument seems to have
concentrated on personal attacks, ignoring substantive responses to nearly
all questions put and the fact that bitkeeper was restricted software.  BK
then seems to have become the repository by sheer persistence.

2. http://kt.zork.net/kernel-traffic/kt19991011_38.html#5
3. http://www.uwsg.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/9909.3/0511.html

Is there anything we can practically do to change the bk decision? It looks
like bk has raised more than enough technical problems of its own.  Maybe
Aegis solves some of them?  Aegis also have problems marketing themselves. 
PDF manuals, really, in this day and age!  ;_)

Needing a non-free tool to be a first-class citizen on development of a Free
Software project always seems a shame to me.

-- 
MJR ,----------------------------------------------------
    | Q. Do you need a net-based application developing, 
    |    or advice and training about web technology?
    | A. I suggest you try http://www.luminas.co.uk/