Why I am no longer working on Mercurial
shawn.starr at rogers.com
Fri Sep 30 23:12:55 CDT 2005
I'm sure he knows his EULA is not enforceable nor would there be any legal
standing. If you dont have access to his code then he can't touch you.
On September 30, 2005 17:40, Bryan O'Sullivan wrote:
> As I mentioned the other day, I will not be contributing to Mercurial
> development for a while. Several people have asked me why.
> At my workplace, we use a commercial SCM tool called BitKeeper to
> manage a number of source trees. Last week, Larry McVoy (the CEO of
> BitMover, which produces BitKeeper) contacted my company's management.
> Larry expressed concern that I might be moving BitKeeper technology
> into Mercurial. In a phone conversation that followed, I told Larry
> that of course I hadn't done so.
> However, Larry conveyed his very legitimate worry that a fast,
> stable open source project such as Mercurial poses a threat to his
> business, and that he considered it "unacceptable" that an employee of
> a customer should work on a free project that he sees as competing.
> To avoid any possible perception of conflict, I have volunteered to
> Larry that as long as I continue to use the commercial version of
> BitKeeper, I will not contribute to the development of Mercurial.
> As such, Mercurial can stand entirely on its own merits in comparison
> to BitKeeper. This, I am sure, is a situation that we would all
> Mercurial mailing list
> Mercurial at selenic.com
More information about the Mercurial