I'm pretty sure that this should've been clear enough.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Chris Kuethe <chris.kuethe@gmail.com>
Date: Sep 4, 2005 9:52 PM
Subject: Re: OpenCVS status?
To: Arthur Barrett <arthur.barrett@march-hare.com>


On 9/4/05, Arthur Barrett <arthur.barrett@march-hare.com> wrote:
> ...
> The project goals seem very similar to the CVSNT goals (which despite
> its name runs fine on Linux/Unix and as far as I know BSD). CVSNT is
> free and is licensed under the GNU GPL.

GPL == Big Waste of OpenBSD's time.

You might want to read the archives for the last few years and see the
quite erosion of GPL code in OpenBSD. You'll find that GPL is being
deleted and replaced with BSD code, or just deleted entirely because
it was underused.

Read the commit logs for opencvs. See who's been committing to those
files - that'll give you some idea of who's working on it. And the CVS
we have in the tree is already GPL'd. No sense in ripping it out to
replace it with another GPL package.

Not to be rude, this is just my distillation of hanging around OpenBSD
since 2.1 ...


--
GDB has a 'break' feature; why doesn't it have 'fix' too?


--
GDB has a 'break' feature; why doesn't it have 'fix' too?