Differences between version 5 and previous revision of BitKeeper.
Other diffs: Previous Major Revision, Previous Author, or view the Annotated Edit History
| Newer page: | version 5 | Last edited on Thursday, November 6, 2003 11:12:51 am | by JohnMcPherson | Revert |
| Older page: | version 4 | Last edited on Thursday, November 6, 2003 6:35:13 am | by BrianFitzpatrick | Revert |
@@ -2,11 +2,14 @@
''I believe it's quite different because CVS thinks about "per file" changes, where BitKeeper thinks about "changesets" -- PerryLorier''
Linus is now using BitKeeper for the kernel sources since sometime around 2.4.13
+
+BitKeeper isn't FreeSoftware. It does some strange things; for example, it will make all your changes/log files public, unless you buy a commercial licence (the idea being that open source software can use it without charge, but people who want to keep changes proprietary need to pay $$). I'm not sure about the licence details, but I think it requires you to accept changes to the licence, and to use newer versions of the software.
+Another contentious issue is that they changed their licence so that people could not use it who are working on a competing product, for example, SubVersion. There has (IMHO quite rightly) been a lot of anger over this move.
+
More information [here|http://www.bitkeeper.com/].
----
-2002-10-10: There has been a large debate about this recently. BitKeeper isn't FreeSoftware, and they changed their LicenseAgreement so that people could not use it who are working on a competing product, for example, [Subversion|http://subversion.tigris.org/]. There has (IMHO quite rightly) been a lot of anger over this move.
------
+
CategoryPolitics
