Re: [Groff] mom: Some follow-up questions

[Larry McVoy]

On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 03:09:55PM -0500, Alejandro L?pez-Valencia wrote:
> >>Subverson were better technical choices, you just imposed your fears and 
> >>biases upon my words. I merely said *better choices*.
> >
> >Yes, you say that but you don't say why.  As far as I can tell this is just
> >FUD.
> >
> FUD? 

Yeah, FUD.  What's the problem?

> 1. Where is the open source client *source code* at the website? I can't 
> find it.

http://www.bitmover.com/bk-client.shar

> 2. Where is the open source license? 

In the source files.  It's basically a BSD license.

> As on why I think CVS or Subversion are better choices for an open 
> source project such as the UTP book that's a discussion for another day. 
> I'll just leave this small thought up in the air for whoever is reading 
> this: "price of entry, cost of ownership".

Yeah, like I said, FUD.  I don't mind people who have legit problems with
BK or anything else.  But saying "it's the wrong answer" and replying to
"why" with "that's a discussion for another day.  And here's some more
FUD" pretty much makes my point.  FUD.
-- 
---
Larry McVoy                lm at bitmover.com           http://www.bitkeeper.com