[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: collab.net support

From: Robert Anderson <RWA_at_sbcglobal.net>
Date: 2002-12-16 20:00:32 CET

--- Original Message ---
From: Karl Fogel <kfogel@newton.ch.collab.net>
To: Robert W Anderson <rwa@alumni.princeton.edu>
CC: dev@subversion.tigris.org
Subject: Re: collab.net support

>Robert W Anderson <rwa@alumni.princeton.edu> writes:
>> I am interested in understanding why collab.net is supporting the
>> development of subversion. The FAQ only addresses who "owns" the
>> code. What I'd like to understand is: What is the vested
interest in
>> subversion of collab.net?
>
>CollabNet wants to establish Subversion as the successor to CVS,
>because CollabNet's product (SourceCast) has a version contol
>component. That part of SourceCast is currently implemented by CVS;
>but Subversion lurks, uh, subversively, in the wings.
>
>The idea is that if people like Subversion, then they'll be that
much
>more comfortable with SourceCast.

Thanks for the forthright answer. I expected (and got in other
replies) something half-assed like "we want to create a better
revision control system." Well, duh. But the question is how do
you expect to make money from it? Which you answered in a
credible way. Thanks.

>> I think it is a reasonable thing to want to understand before
>> contributing to a project, or similarly, before deciding what
next-gen
>> rev. ctl. project to contribute to.
>
>I actually don't see what difference it makes (for a
contributor), but
>I hope the above answer helps.

This will probably elicit boos from the peanut gallery, but it's
pretty simple. I am not particularly interested in directly
helping support a commercial company in developing a product
which will be profitable for them, even if I get "something free"
out of the process. The reason is basic economics - by enriching
others, I impoverish myself. Anyone who has tried to save for a
downpayment on a home in the SF Bay area during the stock option
days (who themselves are not in on the game) understands this
idea well enough.

So, given the choice between developing a rev. ctl. solution that
has most of its activation energy coming from a commercial
venture and one that does not, I'll tend to choose the latter for
basic reasons of economic self-interest. That's my view - others
are free to disagree as they see fit.

Bob

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Dec 16 20:09:02 2002

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.