[Linux-cluster] Subversion?

[Kevin P. Fleming]

Daniel Phillips wrote:

> Sources.redhat.com not only consists entirely of free software, but 
> shows leadership to the free software community.  We[1] are interested 
> in advancing not only our own projects, but other open source projects 
> such as Subversion and Arch.
> 
> [1] Presumptively speaking for what I presume is the majority.

I wholeheartedly agree with these statements, and if using Free Software 
projects to advance your own is the right decision then I fully support 
it. I just don't like to see decisions made using inaccurate, 
politicized arguments.

In this case, you are far better off (IMO) to say "We won't use 
BitKeeper because it is not open source", rather than to rely on 
arguments about its licensing model. It's likely that even if the 
binary-only free use license for BitKeeper came with _no_ restrictions 
whatsoever, it still would not be your choice for an SCM, because it is 
not open source.