On Tue, 19 Jun 2001, Crispin Cowan wrote: > jmjonesat_private wrote: > > > On Tue, 19 Jun 2001, Stephen Smalley wrote: > > > I don't understand why you can't use BitKeeper to access the lsm tree. > > > The license shouldn't matter for just viewing the lsm tree. > > > > I contacted the people at BitKeeper. They were very helpful, but, > > clearly, BitKeeper is not public domain, nor "prestinely GPL". My > > support of LSM is hosted on a MIPS Nevada 1.0 processor (admittedly olde), > > That is your problem :-) > > > > but there are issues with introducing BitKeeper into my cyberspace because I > > do not exclusively (or primarily) support open software. (Okay, now I am > > "evil" to the majority of the lurkers on this list. :)) > > That doesn't make sense to me. WireX also works on proprietary software, we just > don't put it on Bitkeeper. Having BK in your house does not taint all of your > software. > > For those who are interested, we're using BK for LSM in part to try it out. If > we really like it, we may buy commercial licenses of BK for use in our > proprietary development. So far, it is doing better than CVS, and is certainly > more attractive than behemoths like ClearCase. > > Crispin > All I can offer is that I talked to my attorneys and was advised against accepting BitKeeper's license based on my intentions and expectations. Attorneys think "differently" than technical people, which is why we hire them. They may be wrong, but not for me "in general". As a developer... BitKeeper's license is not "standard". If you work for a big company, aim your legal department at it. If they give the "go-ahead", go for it. The selection of BitKeeper has some issues... which may or not be relevant to your specific needs. MY specific situation denies me bitkeeper access. YES, it's MY PROBLEM. NO, it is not a "global" problem. How hard/evil would it be to tarball up the whole development tree once every 24 or 48 hours? If it could be supported, I'd provide a site to make it accessable if THAT kernel would be provided, as an option, I think it would solve my problem. If not, I await an official release of the LSM patch from the list/site against a stable linux kernel. And I will attempt to apply Mr. Smalley's modified patch against what I have and work from there. Sincerely, J. Melvin Jones P.S. -- I don't, currently, have any problems with the current support... but there are issues which recently arose. |>------------------------------------------------------ || J. MELVIN JONES jmjonesat_private |>------------------------------------------------------ || Microcomputer Systems Consultant || Software Developer || Web Site Design, Hosting, and Administration || Network and Systems Administration |>------------------------------------------------------ || http://www.jmjones.com/ |>------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ linux-security-module mailing list linux-security-moduleat_private http://mail.wirex.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-security-module
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jun 19 2001 - 14:27:39 PDT