BitKeeper licence critic

Jeroen Dekkers jeroen at
Sat Mar 16 16:14:38 UTC 2002

On Sat, Mar 16, 2002 at 04:44:41PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> >From jeroen at Sat Mar 16 15:41:29 2002
> >Nice. Do you also fix the bugs in solaris if you find them?
> There are much much less bug then in Linux. If I find a bug, I report it.

And if they don't fix your reported bug? Or if it takes a month and
you want to get something done which triggers that bug?
> >> You are kidding! If there is no standard compliance, there is no freedom!
> >> I don't like to be forced to port software just because some people
> >> don't do their job well enough. If this is what you understand by freedom
> >> you don't understand what freedom means. Freedom is not just freedom in
> >> a nutshell.
> >Nobody force you. You've the freedom to do what you want, you don't
> >*have to port*. If those people don't do the job well and those people
> >want to run your software, they could a) fix there own things b)
> >port your software so you only have to apply the patch.
> People like you try to force me. 

I would write a patch, send it to you and try to convince to include
it. I would not force you with a gun to apply the patch.

> You want to force me to use bad free
> software although there is much better non-open software free of charge.

Convincing != forcing.

> >I'm not saying that standard compliance is bad, given that the
> >standard isn't fucked up. When I'm developping I'm taking care I'm
> >POSIX compliant.
> >But yes, there are a lot of people who don't do their job well enough
> >and don't look if they are compliant. Just like you for example,
> >having a quick look at the cdrecord code it uses PATH_MAX. This isn't
> >POSIX compatible, PATH_MAX is marked optional. Systems don't need to
> If you don't understand portability or if you only browse the source
> for a second, you should not comment on it!.

I shouldn't? Does your program build and function correctly if
PATH_MAX isn't defined? To give you an example: if the current working
directory is bigger than 1024 the last part will be removed in

> also:
> Did you already switch to star because GNUtar is nonstandard?

I don't like the star interface and like the GNU tar one. I have never
problems with the nonstandard format of GNU tar. Why should I switch
to star if I don't like the program and don't have any problem with
GNU tar?

> You are jumping with your mind frequently in order to express your wishes.
> If you have a standpoint, you should be consequent.

I am consequent. I like compatibility, but it's not the most important

Jeroen Dekkers
Jabber supporter - Jabber ID: jdekkers at
Debian GNU supporter -
IRC: jeroen at openprojects
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <>

More information about the Discussion mailing list