Re: Postgres development model

Tom Lane wrote:
> Christopher Browne <cbbrowne@acm.org> writes:
> > Oops! reinoud.v@n.leeuwen.net (Reinoud van Leeuwen) was seen spray-painting on a wall:
> >> Why? I understood that using BitKeeper for free for Open Source projects 
> >> is allowed. (but IANAL).
> 
> > Ah, but there's a problem with BK _actually seen in production_ in
> > that people that work on competing products are not permitted to use
> > it.
> 
> In particular, I would have to resign from the project if we went over
> to BK, as my employer (Red Hat) is affected by this restriction.  BK
> does not meet the accepted definition of Open Source because of this
> unfriendly license clause.

How do the Linux kernel developer guys go from no revision system (just
Linus's hard drive) to Bitkeeper and requring a signed authorization
letter from each contributor?  They went from too little to too much,
and never hit the happy medium.

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
359-1001+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073