[Sussex] Bitkeeper threaten OSS community

[John Crowhurst]

> Chaps,
>
> Some of you will be aware that for some time now Kernel source control
> has  been done in BitKeeper  - a proprietary piece of software.  RMS has
> never  been happy about this, but as he is not "in charge" of anything
> to do with  the kernel (other than its license) this situation has
> persisted.  However,  bitkeeper has caught wind of recent efforts to
> produce an OpenSource  alternative to their product and they are not
> happy.  They are effectively  threatening to ensure that it is not easy
> for the kernel source (or any other  project using bitkeeper) to be
> moved away from their product by adopting the  tactic of constant change
> and signature checking.

I can't see how bitkeeper can stop the Open Source community from creating
a better program to replace bitkeeper. Just like natural evolution, open
source evolution will find its own way around the problems.

The best answer for them is to OSS their code. Programmers would then be
able to enhance their product in every stage, and eliminate any code
problems if any arose in their codebase.

I looked at their website, very closed source binary only distribution.

--
John