BitKeeper licence critic

[Wim De Smet]

Hi,

Luciano Miguel Ferreira Rocha wrote:

>On Fri, Mar 08, 2002 at 10:10:51PM +0100, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
>
>><snip>
>>
>>According to my knowledge vi (at least some implementations)
>>and mozilla are free.
>>
>So is Linux. And I'm not sure about vi, I could only find a draft of
>a licence that wasn't sure about being GPL compatible.
>Yet, my point was that Mozilla is ported to run on Windows. Should Free
>software developers do that? And most of those developers program on
>Windows (that's why Mozilla is faster and better in Win32 than any other
>platform). Shouldn't we just stopping using Mozilla?
>
What is your base to say this? As far as I know mozilla runs much better 
on GNU/Linux, although that might be due to the OS and not the program. 
Maybe the development is more win32 orientated because of the major 
problems in a win32 environment?
Anyway, I do not think you should stop using a program just because it 
aims to be multi-platform. Free software is free software, be it on a 
free or a non-free OS.

>
>
>>Free software developers shouldn't use non-free software and promote
>>free software IMHO.
>>
>By developing free software they're promoting free software. By personally
>using some not-so-free (not free, anyway) software they don't start
>promoting non-free against free software.
>
My point exactly on mozilla, I believe.

>
>
>>My biggest reasons for not staying with Linux are technical.
>>
>And the biggest reasons for Linux being widely used are technical, as
>are the biggest reasons for Hurd not being widely used nor developed upon...
>
>Regards,
>Luciano Rocha
>
thx for your time,
Wim