Commits

Shlomi Fish committed 7d1a61d

Remove trailing space (with a test suite).

Comments (0)

Files changed (66)

 * Add a note to the Aegis Childhood diseases document saying it is
 deprecated.
 
-* Link to Gabor Szabo's Subversion Compared page (see his use.perl.org 
+* Link to Gabor Szabo's Subversion Compared page (see his use.perl.org
 journal)
 
 * Split Bazaar/Bazaar-NG off the Arch page. (see the thread in the mailing
 list archive)
 
-* Add a new news item about the ClearCase, AccuRev and Mercurial 
+* Add a new news item about the ClearCase, AccuRev and Mercurial
 additions.
 
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 # IMAGES += $(addprefix $(D)/win32_build/,bootstrap/curl.exe bootstrap/build.bat static/zip.exe static/unzip.exe dynamic/fcs.zip)
 
-dummy: latemp_targets news_feeds 
+dummy: latemp_targets news_feeds
 
 WML_FLAGS += --passoption=2,-X3074 --passoption=3,-I../lib/ \
 	--passoption=3,-w -I../lib/ -DROOT~. $(LATEMP_WML_FLAGS)
 $(RSS_FEED): gen-feeds.pl lib/MyManageNews.pm
 	perl -Ilib gen-feeds.pl --rss2-out="$@"
 
-.PHONY: 
+.PHONY:
 
 src/comparison/comparison.html.wml: src/comparison/scm-comparison.xml
 	touch $@
 upload_beta: all
 	cd $(D) && \
 	$(RSYNC) * $(UPLOAD_BASE)/__Beta-Site/
-	
+
 upload_stable: all
 	cd $(D) && \
 	$(RSYNC) * $(UPLOAD_BASE)/
+
+test: all
+	prove Tests/*.t
+
+runtest: all
+	runprove Tests/*.t

Tests/style-trailing-space.t

+#!/usr/bin/perl
+
+use strict;
+use warnings;
+
+use Test::More tests => 1;
+
+use Test::TrailingSpace;
+
+my $finder = Test::TrailingSpace->new(
+    {
+        root => '.',
+        filename_regex => qr/(?:(?:\.(?:t|pm|pl|PL|yml|json|wml|txt|xml|html|xhtml|sh|xsl|css|cfg|dsl|ttml|mak))|MANIFEST|README|Makefile|Changes|TODO|unchanged|DONE)\z/,
+    },
+);
+
+# TEST
+$finder->no_trailing_space(
+    "No trailing space was found."
+);
+

bundle/Bundle-Sites-BetterScm/BetterScm.pm

 
 =head1 NAME
 
-Bundle::Sites::BetterScm - A bundle to install external CPAN modules used by 
+Bundle::Sites::BetterScm - A bundle to install external CPAN modules used by
 the Better-SCM site
 
 =head1 SYNOPSIS
   cpan> quit
 
 Just like the manual installation of perl modules, the user may
-need root access during this process to insure write permission 
+need root access during this process to insure write permission
 is allowed within the intstallation directory.
 
 

bundle/Bundle-Sites-BetterScm/README

-Bundle::Sites::BetterScm - A bundle to install CPAN modules used by the 
+Bundle::Sites::BetterScm - A bundle to install CPAN modules used by the
 Better-SCM site.
 
 Version 0.2.0 - 2005-04-17

lib/MyManageNews.pm

 
 my @news_items =
 (
-    (map 
-        { 
-            +{%$_, 
-                'author' => "Shlomi Fish", 
-                'category' => "Better SCM", 
+    (map
+        {
+            +{%$_,
+                'author' => "Shlomi Fish",
+                'category' => "Better SCM",
                 'text' => "Hello"
             }
         }
         {
             'title' => "New BitKeeper Essay + PureCM Added to the Comparison",
             'id' => "changes-2005-05-18",
-            'description' => q{There's a new BitKeeper essay on the Better-SCM 
+            'description' => q{There's a new BitKeeper essay on the Better-SCM
             site and PureCM was added to the comparsion.},
             'date' => "2005-05-18",
         },
             'title' => "\"The BitKeeper Ghost\"",
             'id' => "changes-2005-10-18",
             'description' => q{A New Essay: "The BitKeeper Ghost" was added
-            to the Better-SCM Site. It covers the latest developments in 
+            to the Better-SCM Site. It covers the latest developments in
             the BitKeeper Saga after the department of Bryan O'Sullivan
             from Mercurial.},
             'date' => "2005-05-18",
             'title' => "ClearCase, Mercurial and AccuRev Added to the Comparison",
             'id' => "changes-2007-02-23",
             'description' => q{Three new (and important) systems were added
-            to the comparison recently: the commercial and renowed ClearCase, 
+            to the comparison recently: the commercial and renowed ClearCase,
             the open-source Mercurial, and the commercial AccuRev.
             },
             date => "2007-02-23",
         {
             'title' => "Updated Comparison and Monotone Updates",
             'id' => "changes-2009-05-19",
-            'description' => q{3 new systems have been added to the 
+            'description' => q{3 new systems have been added to the
             comparison, the comparison was updated in general, and Monotone
             now has more up-to-date information.
             },
         {
             'text' => "General Docs",
             'url' => "docs/",
-            'title' => ("General Documents that don't Belong to " . 
+            'title' => ("General Documents that don't Belong to " .
                 "Anywhere More Specific."),
             'subs' =>
             [
             'text' => "Alternatives",
             'url' => "alternatives/",
             'expand' => { 're' => ""},
-            'subs' => 
+            'subs' =>
             [
                 {
                     'text' => "Aegis",
                 {
                     'text' => "BitKeeper",
                     'url' => "bk/",
-                    'title' => ("A Proprietary Distributed Version" . 
+                    'title' => ("A Proprietary Distributed Version" .
                         " Control System"),
                     'subs' =>
                     [
                         {
                             'text' => "Relicensing BK",
                             'url' => "bk/relicensing_bk.html",
-                            'title' => ("Changing the BitKeeper License and" . 
+                            'title' => ("Changing the BitKeeper License and" .
                                 " Why it is Needed")
                         },
                         {
                             'text' => "Demise of Gratis Version",
                             'url' => "bk/demise-of-gratis-bitkeeper.html",
-                            'title' => ("The Demise of the Gratis" . 
+                            'title' => ("The Demise of the Gratis" .
                                 " BitKeeper Licensing"),
                         },
                         {
                 {
                     'text' => "Mercurial",
                     'url' => "alternatives/mercurial/",
-                    'title' => ("Mercurial - an Open Source Distributed" . 
+                    'title' => ("Mercurial - an Open Source Distributed" .
                         "Version Control System"),
                 },
                 {
                 {
                     'text' => "Subversion",
                     'url' => "subversion/",
-                    'title' => ("A Version Control System that Aims to " . 
+                    'title' => ("A Version Control System that Aims to " .
                         "Provide a Good Alternative to CVS"),
                     'subs' =>
                     [
                         {
                             'text' => "A Compelling Alternative",
                             'url' => "subversion/compelling_alternative.html",
-                            'title' => ("Subversion - A Compelling " . 
+                            'title' => ("Subversion - A Compelling " .
                                 "Alternative to CVS and BitKeeper"),
                         },
                         {
                             'text' => "Win32 Installation Guide",
                             'url' => "subversion/Svn-Win32-Inst-Guide.html",
-                            'title' => ("A Quick-start guide for Installing " . 
+                            'title' => ("A Quick-start guide for Installing " .
                                 "Subversion on a Microsoft Windows System"),
                         },
                     ],
                 {
                     'text' => "Vesta",
                     'url' => "vesta/",
-                    'title' => ("Vesta - a Distributed SCM with a " . 
+                    'title' => ("Vesta - a Distributed SCM with a " .
                         "special filesystem service"),
                 },
             ],
             'title' => "Chat about Version Control using the Internet",
         },
         {
-            'text' => "Links", 
+            'text' => "Links",
             'url' => "links.html",
             'title' => "Links of Relevance",
         },
 
 sub get_params
 {
-    return 
+    return
         (
             'hosts' => $hosts,
             'tree_contents' => $tree_contents,
 <div class="note">
 <h2>Note about BitKeeper</h2>
 <p>
-Due to recent (as of 13 April 2005) developments, the information contained in 
-these pages, may no longer be fully relevant. Refer to 
+Due to recent (as of 13 April 2005) developments, the information contained in
+these pages, may no longer be fully relevant. Refer to
 <a href="$(ROOT)/bk/demise-of-gratis-bitkeeper.html">our summary page about
 this</a> for more information.
 </p>

lib/rejects/common-styles.css.ttml

 a:hover
-{ 
+{
     color : [% a_hover_color %];
 }
 .main
     margin-bottom: 0em;
 }
 .vcs
-{    
+{
     margin-top: 0.5em;
     clear: left;
 }
     margin-bottom: 0.5em;
     margin-right: 10pt;
 }
-/* Workaround to get the <hr /> element at the bottom to properly display 
+/* Workaround to get the <hr /> element at the bottom to properly display
    with Konqueror 3.3.x
    */
 .footer hr
 }
 .link { background : transparent; }
 ul.navbarmain
-{ 
+{
     font-size: 80%;
     font-family: sans-serif;
 }
 {
     padding-left: 0.3em;
 }
-.navbar 
+.navbar
 {
     background-color : [% navbar_bgcolor %];
 }
-h2 
-{ 
+h2
+{
     background-color: [% h2_bgcolor %];
 }
 

lib/rejects/monotone.wml

 Finally it identifies the various revisions of
-files by their cryptographical digests, which makes it have some not 
-so-user-friendly identifiers 
+files by their cryptographical digests, which makes it have some not
+so-user-friendly identifiers
 (such as: <tt>9fb38dee24fa6f6a7afc2bfd4b09f1dd65edcd79</tt>). Another potential
 problem is that because the common history is only in the depot, it is possible
 the repositories of the individual developers will become unsyncrhonized with

relicensing_bk.html

     </head>
     <body style="background-color : style">
         <h1>Changing the BitKeeper License and Why it is Needed</h1>
-    
+
         <h2>Introduction</h2>
 
         <p>
-        As was seen in the "Suitability of BitKeeper for Free Software 
+        As was seen in the "Suitability of BitKeeper for Free Software
         Developers", the BitKeeper License and its dynamics prevents it
         from being employed for free software projects. This is unfortunate
         since Larry McVoy's original intention was that BitKeeper would
         In this document, I will show that the restrictions on the BitKeeper
         license have other bad side-effects as far as BitMover is concerned. I
         believe that in order for BitKeeper to be widely deployed and become
-        a popular replacement for CVS, its license needs to drastically 
+        a popular replacement for CVS, its license needs to drastically
         changed. Note that I do not suggest making BitKeeper fully open-source
         (see below), but the majority of developers out there will have no
         problem using a solution that is only almost open-source.
         </p>
-        
+
         <h2>Life and Death in the Hands of the License</h2>
 
         <p>
         There are several examples that show that the choice of a license is
         the most important choice a project can take. Linus Torvalds claimed
-        in <a href="http://www.webreview.com/1998/04_10/developers/04_10_98_4.shtml">an interview</a> with him that "making Linux GPL'd was definitely the best thing I ever did". Many people claim its GPL nature gave Linux a very good 
+        in <a href="http://www.webreview.com/1998/04_10/developers/04_10_98_4.shtml">an interview</a> with him that "making Linux GPL'd was definitely the best thing I ever did". Many people claim its GPL nature gave Linux a very good
         advantage over the BSD-licensed BSDs.
         </p>
 
         <p>
-        There is another example: MySQL. MySQL emerged at a time when the two 
-        available SQL database systems were Postgres, which was BSD-licensed 
+        There is another example: MySQL. MySQL emerged at a time when the two
+        available SQL database systems were Postgres, which was BSD-licensed
         and quite heavyweight, and mSQL or Mini-SQL, which was lightweight, with
-        a reduced functionality, freely distributable but required a license. 
-        MySQL started as an internally used database by T.c.X DataKonsulter, 
+        a reduced functionality, freely distributable but required a license.
+        MySQL started as an internally used database by T.c.X DataKonsulter,
         a Swedish consultants company. They decided to release it as
         shrinkwrap as a not fully free but usable license, that required no
-        payment for depolyment on UNIX. As a result, MySQL became very popular 
+        payment for depolyment on UNIX. As a result, MySQL became very popular
         and is the most widely used Database server today.
         </p>
 
         <p>
         So popular that many web applications (including one of my own) depend
         on it and would not work with any other application. This is partly due
-        to the fact, that programmers work directly with the MySQL specific 
-        API, and partly due to the fact that writing SQL that is portable 
-        between various databases is surprisingly hard and many times one have 
-        to rely on proprietary extensions. When MySQL.com was formed to 
+        to the fact, that programmers work directly with the MySQL specific
+        API, and partly due to the fact that writing SQL that is portable
+        between various databases is surprisingly hard and many times one have
+        to rely on proprietary extensions. When MySQL.com was formed to
         maintain the database, its investors requested that MySQL would be made         open-source, so they will have a guarantee that it remain accessible for
         use in case something happens to the company. MySQL AB released it under
         the GPL.
         </p>
 
         <p>
-        Now, I believe releasing MySQL under the GPL in the first case would 
-        have caused it to flourish, but there would have been little 
-        possibility to earn money out of it for T.c.X/MySQL AB. By having 
+        Now, I believe releasing MySQL under the GPL in the first case would
+        have caused it to flourish, but there would have been little
+        possibility to earn money out of it for T.c.X/MySQL AB. By having
         conquered the market first and then only GPLing it, MySQL was able
-        to gain a market dominance while still eventually being able to 
+        to gain a market dominance while still eventually being able to
         open-source the code.
         </p>
 
         <p>
-        I think a similar analogy can be made to BitKeeper, which while being 
-        a relatively successful commercial product, has yet to be widely 
+        I think a similar analogy can be made to BitKeeper, which while being
+        a relatively successful commercial product, has yet to be widely
         deployed among open-source developers.
         </p>
 
         <p>
         Note that I'm not one of those people who believe the GPL is ideal for
         everything. I think every project has an appropriate license depending
-        on the niche it is trying to fill. For example, I believe the Public 
-        Domain was a very good choice for Freecell Solver (shameless plug) 
-        because it made it an excellent choice for vendor of freeware and 
-        shareware Freecell implementations who cannot comply with the 
+        on the niche it is trying to fill. For example, I believe the Public
+        Domain was a very good choice for Freecell Solver (shameless plug)
+        because it made it an excellent choice for vendor of freeware and
+        shareware Freecell implementations who cannot comply with the
         restrictions of the GPL. Similarily, I believe the change of Wine's
         license to LGPL was a mistake and that they should have kept it as X11.
         </p>
         <h2>A Glimpse into the Future</h2>
 
         <p>
-        Let's suppose the development of BitKeeper is present at 
+        Let's suppose the development of BitKeeper is present at
         point x=3.0 and advances in speed 2t. Now let's suppose the development
         of Subversion is at point x=1.0 and advances at speed 1t. (this is a
         worst case scenario). However, the license of BitKeeper prevents it from
-        being deployed by free software developers. 
+        being deployed by free software developers.
         </p>
 
         <p>
-        Thus, BitKeeper would probably become the next ClearCase. (albeit 
+        Thus, BitKeeper would probably become the next ClearCase. (albeit
         probably, a better one) Subversion (or something else) would become the
         next CVS. Fair enough.
         </p>
         <p>
         Now for two questions:
         </p>
-        
+
         <p>
         <ol>
             <li>Do you use ClearCase at home for your pet projects and revision control needs?</li>
         </p>
 
         <p>
-        In the history of revision control systems, many of them went into 
-        oblivion. SCCS, for instance. The Google 
-        <a href=http://directory.google.com/Top/Computers/Software/Configuration_Management/Tools/">Configuration Management Tools</a> 
+        In the history of revision control systems, many of them went into
+        oblivion. SCCS, for instance. The Google
+        <a href=http://directory.google.com/Top/Computers/Software/Configuration_Management/Tools/">Configuration Management Tools</a>
         directory lists many such implementations most of them are yet to make
         a difference somewhere. SCCS died because it was made proprietary by
         AT&amp;T and replaced by RCS and later on CVS. BitKeeper can might as
-        well be a footnote in the history of SCMs, something very good that 
+        well be a footnote in the history of SCMs, something very good that
         persisted for a while until superceded by something better or more
         readily available. Like ClearCase.
         </p>
-        
+
         <h2>Why MvCoy's Attitude towards free users is wrong</h2>
 
         <p>
-        The BitKeeper gratis license forces the user to upgrade to the 
-        newer version should it come out. Furthermore, the license may 
-        be changed between version to version. The new BitKeeper License 
+        The BitKeeper gratis license forces the user to upgrade to the
+        newer version should it come out. Furthermore, the license may
+        be changed between version to version. The new BitKeeper License
         contains other restrictions such as a non-compete clause or the
         fact the the source inside the repositories must be made available
         under a free software license. And naturally, the source code is not
-        available, because someone may patch it to remove the OpenLogging 
+        available, because someone may patch it to remove the OpenLogging
         restrictions.
         </p>
 
         <p>
-        McVoy placed all these restrictions to prevent people from abusing 
+        McVoy placed all these restrictions to prevent people from abusing
         BitKeeper. What he does not realize that they would have abused it
         with or without these restrictions, and that he is only harming free
         users who are are doing nothing wrong but somehow are affected by
         these restrictions. Moreover, it it very improbably that the abusers
         would become paying customers. Most vendors of commercial, internal,
-        embedded or hardware-accompanied software, would either pay for 
+        embedded or hardware-accompanied software, would either pay for
         BitKeeper or use something else free-of-charge like CVS, Subversion
         or Aegis. Those who don't respect copyright law enough to do so,
         can hardly be expected to become paying customers.
         Requiring the source to be published under a free software license is
         draconic. Many times, free software developers keep not-so-free content
         in the repositories, which they did not originate with. Other times, the
-        software is close to being open-source but not quite. OpenLogging and a 
-        requirement that the repository be made online is enough. Even if the 
+        software is close to being open-source but not quite. OpenLogging and a
+        requirement that the repository be made online is enough. Even if the
         contents are proprietary (and just sourceware), a person should be able
         to use it. That's because he would pay should he wish to continue using
         BitKeeper while keeping the source for himself.
         The non-compete clause is especially useless. Even if I'm a developer
         of a competing solution, using the BitKeeper binary will only help me
         learn about its features. Even the source would only be enough to learn
-        about how it is implemented as I cannot direcyly use the soure in my 
-        project, legally and practically. (the codebases may be completely 
+        about how it is implemented as I cannot direcyly use the soure in my
+        project, legally and practically. (the codebases may be completely
         different)
         </p>
 
         <p>
-        To sum up, all the restrictions that were added to BitKeeper along the 
+        To sum up, all the restrictions that were added to BitKeeper along the
         way, would not protect it from being abused, but would harm those users
         who wish to happily use it, without doing anything wrong.
         </p>
             the open-source world, replacing CVS.
             </li>
             <li>
-            BitKeeper is deployed in many software houses who pay for 
+            BitKeeper is deployed in many software houses who pay for
             licensing for it.
             </li>
             <li>
-            BitMover is flooded with patches contributing functionality to 
+            BitMover is flooded with patches contributing functionality to
             BitKeeper, some of them of very high quality. Thus, development
             is much more rapid.
             </li>
             </li>
         </ol>
         </p>
-        
+
         <p>
-        How is it possible? By changing the license to make sure users can 
-        continue using older versions, even modified. Removing the non-compete 
-        clause and other irrational restrictions. Revealing the source 
+        How is it possible? By changing the license to make sure users can
+        continue using older versions, even modified. Removing the non-compete
+        clause and other irrational restrictions. Revealing the source
         code is optional, but will do good in the long run.
         </p>
 
         <p>
         BitMover is profitable now, which is good. But if Larry McVoy wishes
         to make a greater difference he has to look beyond the near-term short
-        and false corporate interests, take a chance and make sure BitKeeper 
-        is present everywhere. This cannot happen with its current licensing 
+        and false corporate interests, take a chance and make sure BitKeeper
+        is present everywhere. This cannot happen with its current licensing
         scheme. Without it, BitKeeper would never become the next CVS, which
         was his intention in the first place.
         </p>
 
         <p>
-        "Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, 
-        even though checkered by failure, than to rank with those poor 
-        spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they 
-        live in the gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat." 
+        "Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs,
+        even though checkered by failure, than to rank with those poor
+        spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they
+        live in the gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat."
         (Theodore Roosevelt)
         </p>
 
         <p>
-        The choice McVoy and Co. must make is now. Subversion and other 
+        The choice McVoy and Co. must make is now. Subversion and other
         open-source alternatives may not be feature by feature compatible
         with BitKeeper now, but they may become so in the future. There
         were times where an open-source project surpassed the functionality
         of a proprietary alternative, even though seemingly the latter had
-        more resources at its disposal. This may happen to BitKeeper, or 
-        just most open-source developers would settle for something less 
-        able. 
+        more resources at its disposal. This may happen to BitKeeper, or
+        just most open-source developers would settle for something less
+        able.
         </p>
 
         <p>
-        I am already involved in Subversion, and while it progresses 
+        I am already involved in Subversion, and while it progresses
         slowly, there are many interested developers there. The limitations
         of CVS and attempts to resolve them are the talk of the day in
         several Internet forums I subscribe to, or visit. If enough people
-        want something better than CVS and Open-Source or something similar, 
+        want something better than CVS and Open-Source or something similar,
         you can be sure they get it. The question is would it be BitKeeper.
         </p>
 

scripts/add-timestamps.sh

 
 eval "$find_command" |     \
     xargs perl -pi -e '/^<subject/&&($_.="<version_control_id \"\$Id\$\" />\n")'
-    
+
 eval "$find_command" |      \
     xargs svn propset svn:keywords Id
 

src/aegis/index.html.wml

 <h2>Summary</h2>
 
 <p>
-Aegis is a source configuration management system by 
-<a href="http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~millerp/README.html">Peter 
+Aegis is a source configuration management system by
+<a href="http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~millerp/README.html">Peter
 Miller</a>. Being an SCM rather than a plain version control system, it also
-tries to ensure the integrity of the code by various means such as registering 
+tries to ensure the integrity of the code by various means such as registering
 automated tests, or code reviews. It is distributed and has other powerful
 features, but is primarily file-system based, and can only be pseudo-networked
 using NFS, or a similar networking file system protocol.
 </p>
 
 <p>
-One downside to using Aegis is that its semantics requires a lot of steps to 
-get started or sometimes even to accomplish certain tasks. As such people 
+One downside to using Aegis is that its semantics requires a lot of steps to
+get started or sometimes even to accomplish certain tasks. As such people
 who are used to simpler version control systems, may find this very tedious.
 </p>
 
 
 <ul>
 <li>
-<a href="overcoming_childhood_diseases.html">Overcoming Aegis' Childhood Diseases</a> - Aegis is a mature software configuration management system, but users 
+<a href="overcoming_childhood_diseases.html">Overcoming Aegis' Childhood Diseases</a> - Aegis is a mature software configuration management system, but users
 of other modern systems (such as BitKeeper) may find it unsuitable due to some of its childhood diseases. This article explains what they are and how they can
 be overcome.
 </li>
 
 <ul>
 <li>
-<a href="mark_veltzer_transcripts.log.txt">The Mark Veltzer/Shlomi Fish 
-Transcripts</a> - 
+<a href="mark_veltzer_transcripts.log.txt">The Mark Veltzer/Shlomi Fish
+Transcripts</a> -
 these are IRC transcripts of a session where Mark Veltzer taught me how to use
 Aegis step by step. They could be of use to Aegis beginners.
 </li>

src/aegis/mark_veltzer_transcripts.log.txt

 Sep 23 20:45:56 <Mark27>	The actual script has something like [% perl_runline %] in the first line
 Sep 23 20:46:07 <rindolf>	OK.
 Sep 23 20:46:17 <Mark27>	And it gets transferred using Perl Template toolkit or autoconf to the script which is run...
-Sep 23 20:46:21 <Mark27>	There is no problem. 
+Sep 23 20:46:21 <Mark27>	There is no problem.
 Sep 23 20:46:28 <Mark27>	Just define this rule in your build system.
 Sep 23 20:46:32 <Mark27>	It has nothing to do with Aegis...
 Sep 23 20:46:33 <rindolf>	And can Aegis do it transparently?
 Sep 23 20:48:10 <Mark27>	Would you modify an object file ?
 Sep 23 20:48:12 <Mark27>	:)
 Sep 23 20:48:24 <Mark27>	You don't modify products unless you want them overwritten the next time around
-Sep 23 20:48:39 <rindolf>	No, but I was hoping for a trigger like that - 
+Sep 23 20:48:39 <rindolf>	No, but I was hoping for a trigger like that -
 Sep 23 20:48:52 <rindolf>	a patch that would be applied upon checkout
 Sep 23 20:48:58 <rindolf>	and would be unapplied upon checkin
 Sep 23 20:49:12 <Mark27>	Oh!!!!
 Sep 23 20:51:35 <Mark27>	(BK doesn't have that)
 Sep 23 20:51:52 <Mark27>	For instance: aegis won't let you commit changes which don't compile or pass tests
 Sep 23 20:52:32 <rindolf>	And we should rob ideas out of it.
-Sep 23 20:52:33 <Mark27>	Also the multi-path feature is an advantage as far as I see it... 
+Sep 23 20:52:33 <Mark27>	Also the multi-path feature is an advantage as far as I see it...
 Sep 23 20:53:03 <rindolf>	OK. Got to sleep now. Talk to you later.
 Sep 23 20:53:08 <Mark27>	(NO other, and I mean NO OTHER SCS has that feature...:)
 Sep 23 20:53:27 <Mark27>	Ok. Good night. I'll send you my contact info...
 Sep 25 21:53:54 <rindolf>	Listen, I'm completely tired right now. Can we stop at this point?
 Sep 25 21:54:02 <Mark27>	Sure
 Sep 25 21:54:35 <Mark27>	Have a nice night...:)
-Sep 25 21:54:44 <rindolf>	You've been a great heko. Send me the transcript. Hopefully I can make a nice quick start guide out of it 
+Sep 25 21:54:44 <rindolf>	You've been a great heko. Send me the transcript. Hopefully I can make a nice quick start guide out of it
 Sep 25 21:54:48 <rindolf>	Yeah, you too.
 Sep 25 21:54:56 <rindolf>	s/heko/help/
 Sep 25 21:55:19 <rindolf>	Or I can cook a nice quick start guide out of it.
 Sep 26 14:33:41 <rindolf>	        directory
 Sep 26 14:33:41 <rindolf>	aegis: logging to "/home/shlomi/Projects/Aegis//delta2348.001/aegis.log"
 Sep 26 14:33:41 <rindolf>	aegis: project "i-bex": change 10: integration has begun
-Sep 26 14:33:45 <mark>	great. 
+Sep 26 14:33:45 <mark>	great.
 Sep 26 14:33:49 <mark>	Now aeb to build.
 Sep 26 14:33:59 <rindolf>	aegis: appending log to "/home/shlomi/Projects/Aegis/delta2348.001/aegis.log"
 Sep 26 14:33:59 <rindolf>	aegis: project "i-bex": change 10: integration build started 14:19
 Sep 26 14:33:59 <rindolf>	aegis: cd /home/shlomi/Projects/Aegis/delta2348.001
 Sep 26 14:33:59 <rindolf>	aegis: true
 Sep 26 14:33:59 <rindolf>	aegis: project "i-bex": change 10: integration build complete 14:19
-Sep 26 14:34:06 <mark>	Great. 
+Sep 26 14:34:06 <mark>	Great.
 Sep 26 14:34:14 <mark>	Now aeipass (aegis integration pass)
 Sep 26 14:34:35 <rindolf>	egis: project "i-bex": change 10: adjusting file modification times
 Sep 26 14:34:35 <rindolf>	aegis: project "i-bex": change 10: discarding old directories

src/alternatives/bazaar/index.html.wml

 Bazaar is an open-source distributed version control system, sponsored
 by <a href="http://canonical.com/">Canonical Limited</a>, the founders
 of <a href="http://ubuntu.com/">Ubuntu</a>
-and released under the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License">GNU GPL</a>. 
+and released under the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License">GNU GPL</a>.
 </p>
 
 <p>
 </p>
 
 <p>
-Bazaar has a full set of 
+Bazaar has a full set of
 <a href="http://bazaar-vcs.org/BzrPlugins">plugins</a>, and there are many
-<a href="http://bazaar-vcs.org/3rdPartyTools">third-party utilities</a> 
-under active development. Bazaar has been adopted by 
+<a href="http://bazaar-vcs.org/3rdPartyTools">third-party utilities</a>
+under active development. Bazaar has been adopted by
 <a href="http://bazaar-vcs.org/WhoUsesBzr">many projects</a>.
 </p>
 
 <p>
 It should be noted that Bazaar (also known as "bzr" after its command line
 program) used to be called Bazaar-NG, while its predecessor "Baz" (originally
-derived from <a href="$(ROOT)/arch/">GNU Arch</a>) used to be called "Bazaar". 
+derived from <a href="$(ROOT)/arch/">GNU Arch</a>) used to be called "Bazaar".
 However, now after bzr has matured, it assumed the name "Bazaar" instead.
 </p>
 

src/alternatives/darcs/index.html.wml

 </p>
 
 <p>
-One possible drawback to it is that it is written in 
-<a href="http://www.haskell.org/">Haskell</a> and has to be compiled with 
-<a href="http://www.haskell.org/ghc/">GHC</a>. GHC is a Haskell compiler 
-which is itself written in Haskell, with a problematic bootstrapping 
+One possible drawback to it is that it is written in
+<a href="http://www.haskell.org/">Haskell</a> and has to be compiled with
+<a href="http://www.haskell.org/ghc/">GHC</a>. GHC is a Haskell compiler
+which is itself written in Haskell, with a problematic bootstrapping
 procedure, and Haskell may not be entirely scalable due to the limitations of
 the language.
 </p>

src/alternatives/git/index.html.wml

 <p>
 We would love to feature the git version control system here, but
 so far <a href="$(ROOT)/faq/#git-missing"><b>no one
-volunteered to add it</b> and maintain the information about it 
+volunteered to add it</b> and maintain the information about it
 into the future.</a>
 </p>
 
 <p>
 (The reason this page was added is because users of software or web-sites
 <a href="http://www.joelonsoftware.com/uibook/chapters/fog0000000062.html">have
-very selective reading</a>, and wouldn't normally read the 
+very selective reading</a>, and wouldn't normally read the
 <a href="$(ROOT)/faq/">Frequently Asked Questions List</a>.)
 </p>

src/alternatives/index.html.wml

 <h3><a href="$(ROOT)/arch/">Arch</a></h3>
 
 <p>
-A revision control architecutre originally developed by 
-<a href="http://regexps.srparish.net/www/">Tom Lord</a> that 
-is distributed, and can be networked and serviced by a large number of 
-common networking protocols (without a special configuration of the 
+A revision control architecutre originally developed by
+<a href="http://regexps.srparish.net/www/">Tom Lord</a> that
+is distributed, and can be networked and serviced by a large number of
+common networking protocols (without a special configuration of the
 server). Has several open-source implementations.
 </p>
 
 
 <p>
 Bazaar is an open-source decentralized and distributed version control
-system, released under the 
+system, released under the
 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License">GNU GPL</a>.
 </p>
 
 <h3><a href="$(ROOT)/bk/">BitKeeper</a></h3>
 
 <p>
-A proprietary revision control system by BitMover Inc. that used to be 
-available for free software developers under a gratis license. There are many 
+A proprietary revision control system by BitMover Inc. that used to be
+available for free software developers under a gratis license. There are many
 strings attached to it, so <a href="$(ROOT)/bk/">read on</a>.
 </p>
 
 <h3><a href="./darcs/">Darcs</a></h3>
 
 <p>
-An open source version control system written in 
+An open source version control system written in
 <a href="http://www.haskell.org/">Haskell</a>. Distributed, easy to set up
 and serve, supports renames, and incorporates the author "Theory of Patches".
 </p>
 
 <p>
 Perforce (sometimes referred to as P4) is a commercial version control system,
-which is very fast, robust, portable and also quite powerful. It requires a 
-per-developer yearly licensing, but a gratis license is also available for 
+which is very fast, robust, portable and also quite powerful. It requires a
+per-developer yearly licensing, but a gratis license is also available for
 open source developers.
 </p>
 
 
 <p>
 A revision control system that was designed and programmed from the ground's
-up to be modular and scalable, yet resembling CVS a bit in nature. Not as 
+up to be modular and scalable, yet resembling CVS a bit in nature. Not as
 feature-rich as BitKeeper yet, but fully open-source.
 </p>
 
 <h3><a href="$(ROOT)/vesta/">Vesta</a></h3>
 
 <p>
-A software configuration management system originally designed by Digital 
+A software configuration management system originally designed by Digital
 Corp. Now distributed under the LGPL. Replaces both Make and CVS, and so
 can only be built with itself for the time being.
 </p>

src/alternatives/mercurial/index.html.wml

 </li>
 
 <li>
-<a href="http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/Tutorial">A Tutorial on Using 
+<a href="http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/Tutorial">A Tutorial on Using
 Mercurial</a> - on the Mercurial wiki.
 </li>
 

src/alternatives/perforce/index.html.wml

 <h2>Summary</h2>
 
 <p>
-Perforce is a centralized, commercial (non-free) solution for version 
-control. It is very fast, very stable and robust, scales very well, and has a 
-good reputation. It requires an annual per-seat licensing, but is also 
+Perforce is a centralized, commercial (non-free) solution for version
+control. It is very fast, very stable and robust, scales very well, and has a
+good reputation. It requires an annual per-seat licensing, but is also
 available for interested open-source developers under a gratis license.
 </p>
 

src/arch/index.html.wml

 
 <p>
 GNU Arch has been deprecated, and is no longer widely used. Most of the former
-GNU Arch users have migrated to 
+GNU Arch users have migrated to
 <a href="$(ROOT)/alternatives/bazaar/">Bazaar</a> and other version control
 systems. As a result, the information on this page is no longer very relevant.
 </p>
 <h2>Summary</h2>
 
 <p>
-Arch was created by Tom Lord to satisfy his and others revision control 
-needs. It handles file renames, branching, changesets and other things that 
-CVS lacks. 
+Arch was created by Tom Lord to satisfy his and others revision control
+needs. It handles file renames, branching, changesets and other things that
+CVS lacks.
 </p>
 
 <p>
-In <a href="http://subversion.tigris.org/servlets/ReadMsg?list=dev&amp;msgNo=24695">a 
+In <a href="http://subversion.tigris.org/servlets/ReadMsg?list=dev&amp;msgNo=24695">a
 message to the Subversion Development Team</a> Tom Lord noted that it is
 worthwhile to unify Arch' approach to distribution and Subversion's approach to storage management. When the following will take course has yet to be seen.
 </p>
 <ul>
 <!--
 <li>
-<a href="http://www.gnu.org/software/gnu-arch/">gnuarch.org</a> - a portal for 
+<a href="http://www.gnu.org/software/gnu-arch/">gnuarch.org</a> - a portal for
 all things Arch.
 Contains a wiki, many links, bug list, a roadmap, popular essays, and other
 resources.
 </li>
 -->
 <li>
-<a href="http://dmoz.org/Computers/Software/Configuration_Management/Tools/Arch/">Dmoz.org 
+<a href="http://dmoz.org/Computers/Software/Configuration_Management/Tools/Arch/">Dmoz.org
 Category of Arch Resource</a> - contains other links.
 </li>
 </ul>

src/bk/bk_suitability.html.wml

 <p>
 The purpose of this document is to analyze how suitable are
 of <a href="http://www.bitkeeper.com/">BitKeeper</a> and the
-<a href="http://bkbits.net/">bkbits.net</a> hosting service offered by 
-BitMover (BitKeeper's parent company), for use by free software 
-projects.        
+<a href="http://bkbits.net/">bkbits.net</a> hosting service offered by
+BitMover (BitKeeper's parent company), for use by free software
+projects.
 </p>
 
 <p>
-I, Shlomi Fish, am a former user of BitKeeper and the BKBits.net 
-service, a user of other revision control tools such as CVS and 
+I, Shlomi Fish, am a former user of BitKeeper and the BKBits.net
+service, a user of other revision control tools such as CVS and
 <a href="http://subversion.apache.rg/">Subversion</a>, and the
 founder of the "Better SCM" initiative.
 </p>
 product, and free users receive access to its full capabilities. For
 my limited use of it for <a href="http://vipe.technion.ac.il/~shlomif/lm-solve">LM-Solve</a>, which is a very small-scale project, it worked very well,
 but naturally, I did not stress test it. Nevertheless, the Linux kernel
-developers probably stress test it enough, which proves BitKeeper 
+developers probably stress test it enough, which proves BitKeeper
 scales for large-scale projects.
 </p>
 
 <p>
 The free use of BitKeeper requires that the comments attached to the
-changesets be sent by E-mail to 
+changesets be sent by E-mail to
 <a href="http://www.bitkeeper.com/v2_logging/">OpenLogging</a>. This
-should not be a problem for most developers of publicly hosted 
+should not be a problem for most developers of publicly hosted
 Open-Source projects as they expect the history of the project in
 the repositories to be publicly available anyways. (there is a
 small amount of added network traffic, however)
 <p>
 As someone who relied on the BitKeeper support to ask some questions
 on BitKeeper and to receive support for some initial problems
-I had in setting it up, I can say that Larry McVoy and the other 
-BitMover employees, are in general very friendly and helpful 
+I had in setting it up, I can say that Larry McVoy and the other
+BitMover employees, are in general very friendly and helpful
 to free users. I strongly recommend free users to ask questions at
-the 
-<a href="http://www.bitmover.com/mailman/listinfo/bitkeeper-users">bitkeeper-users mailing list</a> and not at the support E-mail which is intended 
+the
+<a href="http://www.bitmover.com/mailman/listinfo/bitkeeper-users">bitkeeper-users mailing list</a> and not at the support E-mail which is intended
 mainly for paying customers. (that was a mistake I made due to the
 fact that the BitKeeper web-site was not very clear about it). Note
-that bitkeeper-users is dedicated for technical discussions of the 
+that bitkeeper-users is dedicated for technical discussions of the
 product and political comments should be kept off it. (another mistake
 I made)
 </p>
 <h2>The BitKeeper License</h2>
 
 <p>
-The BitKeeper License, however, is not very suitable or acceptable for 
+The BitKeeper License, however, is not very suitable or acceptable for
 most Open-Source developers. An old Linux Weekly News editorial I read
-about it described the fact that a few years ago BitKeeper was almost 
+about it described the fact that a few years ago BitKeeper was almost
 free software except for the necessity to keep the OpenLogging feature.
 Since then, its source code is no longer publicly available and the
 license has been changed several times. Sometimes it was made less
 mazes I found on the <a href="http://www.logicmazes.com/">Logic Mazes
 site</a> and similar sites, so users of the program could feed
 the solver with them. These mazes were copyrighted by Robert Abbott and
-others and as far as I knew were not free content. (naturally, they 
+others and as far as I knew were not free content. (naturally, they
 were distributed as a separate package, with an appropriate notice
 explaining who originated and owned them)
 </p>
 
 <p>
-At one point I decided to stop using BitKeeper, due to a 
+At one point I decided to stop using BitKeeper, due to a
 misinterpretation of a license change, my frustration from the lack
-of source code, and the reluctance to put up with further licensing 
+of source code, and the reluctance to put up with further licensing
 changes.
 </p>
 
 
 <p>
 The unavailability of the source code also made my life harder. At once,
-I suggested to Mr. McVoy and Co. that BitKeeper would cache the 
+I suggested to Mr. McVoy and Co. that BitKeeper would cache the
 OpenLogging comments and send them after many were collected. That way,
-the Technion's relatively poor connection to the Internet backbone 
+the Technion's relatively poor connection to the Internet backbone
 would not be constantly flooded with E-mail messages, should it adopt
-BitKeeper system-wide. I believe he implictly agreed it would be a 
-good idea. I thought about implementing it myself and sending him the 
+BitKeeper system-wide. I believe he implictly agreed it would be a
+good idea. I thought about implementing it myself and sending him the
 patch, but I evidently discovered that I could not in a straightforward
 way.
 </p>
 
 <p>
-The pattern is here clear: by restricting the availability and license 
-of BitKeeper, BitMover harms perfectly valid users who are happily 
+The pattern is here clear: by restricting the availability and license
+of BitKeeper, BitMover harms perfectly valid users who are happily
 using BitKeeper, and wish to contribute to its development by feedback
 , help for newbies or even code. It is all done in order to prevent
-a minority of abusers from abusing BitKeeper, and despite the fact 
+a minority of abusers from abusing BitKeeper, and despite the fact
 that I seriously doubt that they would have become paying customers one
 way or the other.
 </p>
 <p>
 The BitKeeper gratis license clearly specifies that one should upgrade
 to the new version of BitKeeper and not use the old one for production
-work, even if a change of license has occurred. This has a very 
-disturbing <a href="http://archive.infoworld.com/ucita/">UCITA</a> 
+work, even if a change of license has occurred. This has a very
+disturbing <a href="http://archive.infoworld.com/ucita/">UCITA</a>
 feel to it.
 </p>
 
 <p>
 In short, the BitKeeper license is not suitable for use by most open-
-source developers, even if they are not "idealistic" enough to 
-refrain from using a package that deviates from the Open Source 
+source developers, even if they are not "idealistic" enough to
+refrain from using a package that deviates from the Open Source
 Definition, and the Free Software Definitions so much. It is simply
 way too restrictive.
 </p>
 <h2>The BKBits.net Hosting Service</h2>
 
 <p>
-As opposed to the license, the BKBits.net hosting service is very 
+As opposed to the license, the BKBits.net hosting service is very
 good. It is discrete, reliable and useful. Starting a
 project requires some RTFMing, but otherwise no intervention on the
 part of BitMover's employees. I never lost data using it, and the
 </p>
 
 <p>
-The main caveat here is that you have to make sure you don't make 
+The main caveat here is that you have to make sure you don't make
 Larry McVoy (the person) angry. He is known to take comments about the
 licensing and what he considers abuse of his service very harshly,
 and wants people to leave him alone.
 </p>
 
 <p>
-As <a href="http://web.mit.edu/ghudson/thoughts/bitkeeper.whynot">Greg Hudson 
+As <a href="http://web.mit.edu/ghudson/thoughts/bitkeeper.whynot">Greg Hudson
     points out</a> using BitKeeper (or any other distributed version
 control system), is actually not necessary for a scalable cooperation.
 Open-source development teams would better give repository access to
 has the access to the central repository (as is the case for Linux).
 </p>
 <p>
-This scheme is taken to extreme by projects like 
-<a href="http://www.kde.org/">KDE</a>, which give away repository 
+This scheme is taken to extreme by projects like
+<a href="http://www.kde.org/">KDE</a>, which give away repository
 access even for very small developers, and maintain the integrity
 of the code by reviewing the changesets in the commits mailing list.
 </p>
 <p>
-It is possible to do so with BitKeeper, but even a lesser version 
+It is possible to do so with BitKeeper, but even a lesser version
 control system will do.
 </p>
 
 
 <p>
 As can be seen, the only bad point here is the license. But the license
-is the most important factor that determines the success of a 
+is the most important factor that determines the success of a
 <a href="http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/FiveWorlds.html">"shrinkwrap"</a>
 software project. We all know how the AT&amp;T licensing of System V
 has done more harm to UNIX than Microsoft could have done alone. We all
-know how the Linux Kernel GPL license gave it an unbeatable edge 
+know how the Linux Kernel GPL license gave it an unbeatable edge
 over the BSDs. I can tell from my experience that my own pet project,
 has become a category killer because it was distributed from the start
-as Public Domain, instead of GPL or simply proprietary license in the 
-case of its many alternatives. (thus making it accessible for many 
+as Public Domain, instead of GPL or simply proprietary license in the
+case of its many alternatives. (thus making it accessible for many
 Freeware and Shareware programs which would like to use it as an API)
 </p>
 
 <p>
 BitKeeper fails miserably here, at least as far as free software
-developers are concerned. Many free software developers are too 
+developers are concerned. Many free software developers are too
 idealistic to use something like that. That was not the case for me
-when I started using BitKeeper, and I got burned in the hands from 
-using it. I still remember having liked it a lot and being very 
+when I started using BitKeeper, and I got burned in the hands from
+using it. I still remember having liked it a lot and being very
 impressed by its capabilities. But it has become inaccessible for
-me and now I grew to like Subversion too, and use it for all my work 
-(including writing this very document). It does not have all of 
+me and now I grew to like Subversion too, and use it for all my work
+(including writing this very document). It does not have all of
 BitKeeper's features but is very usable, and I'm impressed by its
 architecture as well. I recommend every developer to look into some
 of the available alternatives to CVS (CVS is limited in many ways),
 before they settle on using it. The main reason I started using
-BitKeeper was because it offered an attractive free-of-charge public 
+BitKeeper was because it offered an attractive free-of-charge public
 hosting service. If the same existed for Subversion, I would probably
 have used it instead.
 </p>
 
 <p>
 Here, the ball passes to the court of the Hosting Services. Setting
-up hosting of an alternative to CVS (which many times is much more 
-straightforward to manage than CVS, which is known as very insecure by 
+up hosting of an alternative to CVS (which many times is much more
+straightforward to manage than CVS, which is known as very insecure by
 default) will practically make sure no free software developer except
-perhaps the Linux kernel developers will use BitKeeper out of his own 
+perhaps the Linux kernel developers will use BitKeeper out of his own
 free will. Other than that, it is obvious that the limitations of CVS
-and the alternatives to it are the talk of the day in several online 
+and the alternatives to it are the talk of the day in several online
 forums I frequently visit.
 </p>
 

src/bk/demise-of-gratis-bitkeeper.html.wml

 
 <p>
 BitMover, <a href="http://www.bitkeeper.com/">BitKeeper</a>'s parent company,
-<a href="http://www.bitkeeper.com/press/2005-04-05.html">announced 
-that it will discontinue</a> the gratis version of BitKeeper intended for 
-development of Open Source Software. The implications of this 
+<a href="http://www.bitkeeper.com/press/2005-04-05.html">announced
+that it will discontinue</a> the gratis version of BitKeeper intended for
+development of Open Source Software. The implications of this
 are layed out in <a href="http://kerneltrap.org/node/4966">this KernelTrap
-editorial</a>. A NewsForge article 
+editorial</a>. A NewsForge article
 <a href="http://os.newsforge.com/os/05/04/11/118211.shtml?tid=152&amp;tid=2&amp;tid=25&amp;tid=3">interviews the parties involved in this decision</a> and what
 they think.
 </p>
 
 <p>
-As a result, the <a href="http://subversion.apache.org/">Subversion</a> 
-developers issued 
+As a result, the <a href="http://subversion.apache.org/">Subversion</a>
+developers issued
 <a href="http://subversion.tigris.org/subversion-linus.html">a statement</a>
-in which they say that Subversion is not a suitable alternative to 
-BitKeeper for the distributed development-model used by the kernel 
+in which they say that Subversion is not a suitable alternative to
+BitKeeper for the distributed development-model used by the kernel
 developers, and that Subversion advocates should
 not attempt to convince people to use it instead of the no-longer-available
 BitKeeper.
 <p>
 The implication of all of this is that developers of open source software
 who desire to use BitKeeper to maintain their codebase, will require getting
-a commercial license proper from BitMover (possibly for no charge). Linus 
-Torvalds, the chief developer of the Linux kernel, has announced that he will 
-not take this option, and instead that he is seeking an alternative to 
+a commercial license proper from BitMover (possibly for no charge). Linus
+Torvalds, the chief developer of the Linux kernel, has announced that he will
+not take this option, and instead that he is seeking an alternative to
 BitKeeper for maintaining the Linux kernel.
 </p>
 
 <p>
 These announcements invalidate a large part of what was said about BitKeeper
-and its licensing terms, on this site and elsewhere. The content of the 
+and its licensing terms, on this site and elsewhere. The content of the
 pages here will remain, but a notice will be added to indicate that it
 may no longer be relevant.
 </p>
 
 <ul class="links">
 <li>
-<a href="http://kerneltrap.org/node/4966">KernelTrap editorial about the 
+<a href="http://kerneltrap.org/node/4966">KernelTrap editorial about the
 dicontinuation of the gratis BitKeeper</a>
 </li>
 <li>
 story</a> (with comments).
 </li>
 <li>
-<a href="http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=10223">OSNews.com - No More 
+<a href="http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=10223">OSNews.com - No More
 Free BitKeeper</a>. (with comments).
 </li>
 <li>
 <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/04/14/torvalds_attacks_tridgell/">The
 Register - Torvalds knifes Tridgell</a> - a piece about criticism that Linus
-Torvalds voiced against Andrew Tridgell, who was accused by BitMover for 
+Torvalds voiced against Andrew Tridgell, who was accused by BitMover for
 attempting to reverse engineer the BitKeeper protocols. (which in turn caused
 the dis-continuation of the gratis BitKeeper licensing).
 </li>
 <li>
 <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/04/15/perens_on_torvalds/">The
-Register - 'Cool it, Linus' - Bruce Perens</a> - Bruce Perens, the renowed 
+Register - 'Cool it, Linus' - Bruce Perens</a> - Bruce Perens, the renowed
 open-source leader comes to the defence of Andrew Tridgell.
 </li>
 <li>
 <a href="http://software.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=05/04/25/130207">NewsForge
-- BitKeeper Bon-voyage is a Happy Ending</a> - an 
+- BitKeeper Bon-voyage is a Happy Ending</a> - an
 opinionated essay by Richard M. Stallman about BitKeeper and its history.
 Here's
 <a href="http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/25/1936225">the
 coverage on Slashdot</a>.
 </li>
 <li>
-<a href="http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/05/02/18OPopenent_1.html">"Linus 
+<a href="http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/05/02/18OPopenent_1.html">"Linus
 Torvalds' BitKeeper blunder"</a> - an InfoWorld coverage of the case. Also see
 <a href="http://lwn.net/Articles/134404/">the discussion of the article on
 Linux Weekly News</a>.
 </li>
 <li>
-<a href="http://lwn.net/Articles/132938/">Linux Weekly News - How Tridge 
+<a href="http://lwn.net/Articles/132938/">Linux Weekly News - How Tridge
 Reverse Engineered BitKeeper</a> - a feature along with some discussion.
 </li>
 <li>
 <a href="http://lwn.net/Articles/137459/">Linux Weekly News - A Setback for
-Linux (Forbes)</a> - an LWN coverage of the article by Daniel Lyons that 
+Linux (Forbes)</a> - an LWN coverage of the article by Daniel Lyons that
 predicts bad news to the Kernel development as a result of the BitKeeper
 demise.
 </li>
 <li>
-<a href="http://www.computerworld.com/softwaretopics/os/linux/story/0,10801,102216,00.html">Linux 
+<a href="http://www.computerworld.com/softwaretopics/os/linux/story/0,10801,102216,00.html">Linux
 Dispute Boils over to MySQL, Other Projects</a> - an article in ComputerWorld
 about how other Open Source projects which use BitKeeper need to adapt to its
 discontinuation. Also see <a href="http://lwn.net/Articles/138519/">a coverage

src/bk/gpling_bk.html

         I don't normally support open-sourcing commercial software. I don't
         think Microsoft Excel should be open-sourced. I don't think Corel-Draw
         should be open-sourced either. I like Matlab, but I would not recommend
-        the Mathworks to open-source it anytime soon. I like all of them and I 
+        the Mathworks to open-source it anytime soon. I like all of them and I
         think both should remain proprietary.
         </p>
         <p>
         BitKeeper, however is different. BitKeeper would benefit a lot from
-        being open-sourced, and in fact: that choice would determine its 
+        being open-sourced, and in fact: that choice would determine its
         future.
         </p>
         <h2>BitKeeper should be GPLed - for BitMover's sake</h2>
 
         <p>
-        Linus Torvalds and other Linux Kernel developers decided to use 
+        Linus Torvalds and other Linux Kernel developers decided to use
         BitKeeper, despite the fact that it is proprietary. As a result,
         the Linux developers body and the Linux Kernel mailing list has
         been split into two parts: those that support using BitKeeper,
         </p>
         <p>
         Larry McVoy, BitKeeper's colourful developer, has so far insisted on
-        not open-sourcing BitKeeper, saying it will make his company bankrupt. 
+        not open-sourcing BitKeeper, saying it will make his company bankrupt.
         However, this is not the case, and the entire frustration involved with
         dealing with those people who insist on freeing it can be avoided.
         </p>
         <p>
-        I hereby give reasons why 
+        I hereby give reasons why
         <a href="http://www.bitkeeper.com/">BitMover</a>, would be better off
         GPLing BitKeeper. It has nothing to do with whatever free software
         ideals I hold - they are pure strategic ones.
         </p>
-        
+
         <h3>Source Control is like an OS - A Copy on Every Machine</h3>
 
         <p>
         Computer vendors would not dream installing RedHat Linux or Mandrake
-        Linux on their customers' computers without paying RedHat or 
-        MandrakeSoft for a license. But it is perfectly legal to do the 
+        Linux on their customers' computers without paying RedHat or
+        MandrakeSoft for a license. But it is perfectly legal to do the
         opposite.
         </p>
 
         Those that break it are not really a concern of BitMover. They would
         have broken it, anyhow.
         </p>
-        
+
         <h3>BitKeeper is a Platform</h3>
 
         <p>
-        Refer to the <a href="http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/Platforms.html">Platform article</a> 
-        written by everybody's favourite software management guru, 
+        Refer to the <a href="http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/Platforms.html">Platform article</a>
+        written by everybody's favourite software management guru,
         <a href="http://www.joelonsoftware.com/">Joel Spolsky</a>. BitKeeper
-        is a platform, and the evidence is now that BitMover is building a 
+        is a platform, and the evidence is now that BitMover is building a
         bug database based on it. As such, BitMover must make sure it propagates
         everywhere, before a better alternative becomes commonplace instead.
         </p>
-        
+
         <h3>You can't eat your cake and have it too</h3>
         <p>
         Most open-source developers out there won't use BitKeeper under
         full ownership and control on BitKeeper. It is obvious that CVS has
         more activity geared towards it than BitKeeper has: ViewCVS, Cervisia,
         WinCVS, MacCVS, Meta-CVS and <a href="http://freshmeat.net/search/?q=cvs">an entire Freshmeat search for CVS</a>. Due to the fact the source of BitKeeper
-        is not revealed, the culture around it is much less lively. The only 
+        is not revealed, the culture around it is much less lively. The only
         way to remedy it is to open-source BitKeeper.
         </p>
 
 
         <p>
         Larry, it is obvious you don't trust the BitKeeper user-base at large.
-        Lack of trust makes one paranoid. And paranoia makes one unhappy. 
+        Lack of trust makes one paranoid. And paranoia makes one unhappy.
         </p>
 
         <p>
-        You should ask yourself if you're happy. You did not seem happy to 
+        You should ask yourself if you're happy. You did not seem happy to
         me when you (and your employees) attacked me for my attempts to free
         BitKeeper. You also don't seem happy to the masses of the Linux Kernel
         mailing list who have to put up with your constant flood of messages
 
         <p>
         The status quo will only lead you to many anxieties and unhappiness. If
-        you wish to give away all free software users do so, and make sure 
-        BitKeeper is completely proprietary and is not targeted at 
-        open-source developers. In which case it would become the second 
+        you wish to give away all free software users do so, and make sure
+        BitKeeper is completely proprietary and is not targeted at
+        open-source developers. In which case it would become the second
         ClearCase. (only perhaps better)
         </p>
 
         problems on other factors, and that you have a complete distrust of
         the people of the world out there. These are both very bad signs: they
         show of immaturity, irrationality and mysticism. You are also entirely
-        flame-bait about mentioning the license, or in comparison with 
-        open-source alternatives. (some of which believe are superior to 
+        flame-bait about mentioning the license, or in comparison with
+        open-source alternatives. (some of which believe are superior to
         BitKeeper)
         </p>
         <p>

src/bk/index.html.wml

 
 <p>
 A BitKeeper license may be given to developers of open-source software, for
-exclusive work on open-source software. This requires negotiation with 
-BitMover. (There used to be a gratis version 
-available for that purpose under a restrictive license, but it was 
-end-of-lifed.) 
+exclusive work on open-source software. This requires negotiation with
+BitMover. (There used to be a gratis version
+available for that purpose under a restrictive license, but it was
+end-of-lifed.)
 </p>
 <p>
-BitKeeper used to be utilized by many of the 
-<a href="http://www.kernel.org/">Linux Kernel</a> developers, for managing 
+BitKeeper used to be utilized by many of the
+<a href="http://www.kernel.org/">Linux Kernel</a> developers, for managing
 the kernel source. Due to the fact BitKeeper is not open-source this move was
-quite controversial, and caused several flame-wars in the Linux Kernel 
+quite controversial, and caused several flame-wars in the Linux Kernel
 Mailing List and elsewhere. When the gratis version was withdrawn in April
 2005, the developers decided to convert to a different alternative.
 </p>
 </li>
 <li>
 <a href="the-bitkeeper-ghost.html">The BitKeeper Ghost</a> - an essay about
-the remaining effects of BitKeeper, by inspiration from the letter of 
+the remaining effects of BitKeeper, by inspiration from the letter of
 Bryan O'Sullivan, and what should version control users do about it.
 </li>
 </ul>

src/bk/relicensing_bk.html.wml

 
 <latemp_subject "Changing the BitKeeper License and Why it is Needed" />
 <latemp_version_control_id "$Id$" />
- 
+
 <bk_note />
 
 <h2>Introduction</h2>
 
 <p>
-As was seen in the "Suitability of BitKeeper for Free Software 
+As was seen in the "Suitability of BitKeeper for Free Software
 Developers", the BitKeeper License and its dynamics prevents it
 from being employed for free software projects. This is unfortunate
 since Larry McVoy's original intention was that BitKeeper would
 In this document, I will show that the restrictions on the BitKeeper
 license have other bad side-effects as far as BitMover is concerned. I
 believe that in order for BitKeeper to be widely deployed and become
-a popular replacement for CVS, its license needs to drastically 
+a popular replacement for CVS, its license needs to drastically
 changed. Take notice that I do not suggest making BitKeeper fully open-source
 (see below), but the majority of developers out there will have no
 problem using a solution that is only almost open-source.
 <p>
 There are several examples that show that the choice of a license is
 the most important choice a project can take. Linus Torvalds claimed
-in <a href="http://www.webreview.com/1998/04_10/developers/04_10_98_4.shtml">an interview</a> 
-with him that "making Linux GPL'd was definitely the best thing I ever did". 
-Many people claim its GPL nature gave Linux a very good advantage over the 
+in <a href="http://www.webreview.com/1998/04_10/developers/04_10_98_4.shtml">an interview</a>
+with him that "making Linux GPL'd was definitely the best thing I ever did".
+Many people claim its GPL nature gave Linux a very good advantage over the
 BSD-licensed BSDs.
 </p>
 
 <p>
-There is another example: MySQL. MySQL emerged at a time when the two 
-available SQL database systems were Postgres, which was BSD-licensed 
+There is another example: MySQL. MySQL emerged at a time when the two
+available SQL database systems were Postgres, which was BSD-licensed
 and quite heavyweight, and mSQL or Mini-SQL, which was lightweight, with
-a reduced functionality, freely distributable but required a license. 
-MySQL started as an internally used database by T.c.X DataKonsulter, 
+a reduced functionality, freely distributable but required a license.
+MySQL started as an internally used database by T.c.X DataKonsulter,
 a Swedish consultants company. They decided to release it as
 shrinkwrap as a not fully free but usable license, that required no
-payment for depolyment on UNIX. As a result, MySQL became very popular 
+payment for depolyment on UNIX. As a result, MySQL became very popular
 and is the most widely used Database server today.
 </p>
 
 <p>
 So popular that many web applications (including one of my own) depend
 on it and would not work with any other application. This is partly due
-to the fact, that programmers work directly with the MySQL specific 
-API, and partly due to the fact that writing SQL that is portable 
-between various databases is surprisingly hard and many times one have 
-to rely on proprietary extensions. When MySQL.com was formed to 
+to the fact, that programmers work directly with the MySQL specific
+API, and partly due to the fact that writing SQL that is portable
+between various databases is surprisingly hard and many times one have
+to rely on proprietary extensions. When MySQL.com was formed to
 maintain the database, its investors requested that MySQL would be made         open-source, so they will have a guarantee that it remain accessible for
 use in case something happens to the company. MySQL AB released it under
 the GPL.
 </p>
 
 <p>
-Now, I believe releasing MySQL under the GPL in the first case would 
-have caused it to flourish, but there would have been little 
-possibility to earn money out of it for T.c.X/MySQL AB. By having 
+Now, I believe releasing MySQL under the GPL in the first case would
+have caused it to flourish, but there would have been little
+possibility to earn money out of it for T.c.X/MySQL AB. By having
 conquered the market first and then only GPLing it, MySQL was able
-to gain a market dominance while still eventually being able to 
+to gain a market dominance while still eventually being able to
 open-source the code.
 </p>
 
 <p>
-I think a similar analogy can be made to BitKeeper, which while being 
-a relatively successful commercial product, has yet to be widely 
+I think a similar analogy can be made to BitKeeper, which while being
+a relatively successful commercial product, has yet to be widely
 deployed among open-source developers.
 </p>
 
 <p>
 Note that I'm not one of those people who believe the GPL is ideal for
 everything. I think every project has an appropriate license depending
-on the niche it is trying to fill. For example, I believe the Public 
-Domain was a very good choice for 
-<a href="http://vipe.technion.ac.il/~shlomif/freecell-solver/">Freecell Solver</a> 
-(shameless plug) because it made it an excellent choice for vendors of 
-freeware and shareware Freecell implementations who cannot comply with the 
+on the niche it is trying to fill. For example, I believe the Public
+Domain was a very good choice for
+<a href="http://vipe.technion.ac.il/~shlomif/freecell-solver/">Freecell Solver</a>
+(shameless plug) because it made it an excellent choice for vendors of
+freeware and shareware Freecell implementations who cannot comply with the
 restrictions of the GPL. Similarily, I believe the change of Wine's
 license to LGPL was a mistake and that they should have kept it as X11.
 </p>
 </p>
 
 <p>
-Getting hold of the former should be quite easy since BitKeeper is much 
+Getting hold of the former should be quite easy since BitKeeper is much
 superior to the current competition. However, the free-users will not fall
 so easily. After all, CVS is <b>fine</b> - it is reliable, and many very
 large projects were managed with it. It has its limitations, but is still
-nice to work with. And then there are Open-Source alternatives (Aegis, 
+nice to work with. And then there are Open-Source alternatives (Aegis,
 Subversion, Arch, etc) - which are better than CVS, to choose from should you
 want something better.
 </p>
 
 <p>
-These clients will not use BitKeeper out of technical superiority alone. No 
+These clients will not use BitKeeper out of technical superiority alone. No
 sir! They will need it to be accessible and free enough to use so it will
-replace their convenient CVS deployment. If BitMover wishes to get hold of 
+replace their convenient CVS deployment. If BitMover wishes to get hold of
 this market it needs to make sure BitKeeper is not only programmed write,
 but also licensed right.
 </p>
 <h2>A Glimpse into the Future</h2>
 
 <p>
-Let's suppose the development of BitKeeper is present at 
+Let's suppose the development of BitKeeper is present at
 point x=3.0 and advances in speed 2t. Now let's suppose the development
 of Subversion is at point x=1.0 and advances at speed 1t. (this is a
 worst case scenario). However, the license of BitKeeper prevents it from
-being deployed by free software developers. 
+being deployed by free software developers.
 </p>
 
 <p>
-Thus, BitKeeper would probably become the next ClearCase. (albeit 
+Thus, BitKeeper would probably become the next ClearCase. (albeit
 probably, a better one) Subversion (or something else) would become the
 next CVS. Fair enough.
 </p>
 </ol>
 
 <p>
-In the history of revision control systems, many of them went into 
-oblivion. SCCS, for instance. The Google 
-<a href="http://directory.google.com/Top/Computers/Software/Configuration_Management/Tools/">Configuration Management Tools</a> 
+In the history of revision control systems, many of them went into
+oblivion. SCCS, for instance. The Google
+<a href="http://directory.google.com/Top/Computers/Software/Configuration_Management/Tools/">Configuration Management Tools</a>
 directory lists many such implementations most of them are yet to make
 a difference somewhere. SCCS died because it was made proprietary by
 AT&amp;T and replaced by RCS and later on CVS. BitKeeper may might as
-well be a footnote in the history of SCMs, something very good that 
+well be a footnote in the history of SCMs, something very good that
 persisted for a while until superceded by something better or more
 readily available. Like ClearCase.
 </p>
 <h2>Why McVoy's Attitude Towards Free Users is Wrong</h2>
 
 <p>
-The BitKeeper gratis license forces the user to upgrade to the 
-newer version should it come out. Furthermore, the license may 
-be changed between version to version. The new BitKeeper License 
+The BitKeeper gratis license forces the user to upgrade to the
+newer version should it come out. Furthermore, the license may
+be changed between version to version. The new BitKeeper License
 contains other restrictions such as a non-compete clause or the
 fact the the source inside the repositories must be made available
 under a free software license. And naturally, the source code is not
-available, because someone may patch it to remove the OpenLogging 
+available, because someone may patch it to remove the OpenLogging
 restrictions.
 </p>
 
 <p>
-McVoy placed all these restrictions to prevent people from abusing 
+McVoy placed all these restrictions to prevent people from abusing
 BitKeeper. What he does not realize that they would have abused it
 with or without these restrictions, and that he is only harming free
 users who are are doing nothing wrong but somehow are affected by
 these restrictions. Moreover, it it very improbable that the abusers
 would become paying customers. Most vendors of commercial, internal,
-embedded or hardware-accompanied software, would either pay for 
+embedded or hardware-accompanied software, would either pay for
 BitKeeper or use something else free-of-charge like CVS, Subversion
 or Aegis. Those who don't respect copyright law enough to do so,
 can hardly be expected to become paying customers.
 Requiring the source to be published under a free software license is
 draconic. Many times, free software developers keep not-so-free content
 in the repositories, which they did not originate with. Other times, the
-software is close to being open-source but not quite. OpenLogging and a 
-requirement that the repository be made online is enough. Even if the 
+software is close to being open-source but not quite. OpenLogging and a
+requirement that the repository be made online is enough. Even if the
 contents are proprietary (and just sourceware), a person should be able
 to use it. That's because he would pay should he wish to continue using
 BitKeeper while keeping the source for himself.
 The non-compete clause is especially useless. Even if I'm a developer
 of a competing solution, using the BitKeeper binary will only help me
 learn about its features. Even the source would only be enough to learn
-about how it is implemented as I cannot directly use the soure in my 
-project, legally and practically. (the codebases may be completely 
+about how it is implemented as I cannot directly use the soure in my
+project, legally and practically. (the codebases may be completely
 different)
 </p>
 
 <p>
-To sum up, all the restrictions that were added to BitKeeper along the 
+To sum up, all the restrictions that were added to BitKeeper along the
 way, would not protect it from being abused, but would harm those users
 who wish to happily use it, without doing anything wrong.
 </p>
     the open-source world, replacing CVS.
     </li>
     <li>
-    BitKeeper is deployed in many software houses who pay for 
+    BitKeeper is deployed in many software houses who pay for
     licensing for it.
     </li>
     <li>
-    BitMover is flooded with patches contributing functionality to 
+    BitMover is flooded with patches contributing functionality to
     BitKeeper, some of them of very high quality. Thus, development
     is much more rapid.
     </li>
 </ol>
 
 <p>
-How is it possible? By changing the license to make sure users can 
-continue using older versions, even modified. Removing the non-compete 
-clause and other irrational restrictions. Revealing the source 
+How is it possible? By changing the license to make sure users can
+continue using older versions, even modified. Removing the non-compete
+clause and other irrational restrictions. Revealing the source
 code is optional, but will do good in the long run.
 </p>
 
 <p>
 BitMover is profitable now, which is good. But if Larry McVoy wishes
 to make a greater difference he has to look beyond the near-term short
-and false corporate interests, take a chance and make sure BitKeeper 
-is present everywhere. This cannot happen with its current licensing 
+and false corporate interests, take a chance and make sure BitKeeper
+is present everywhere. This cannot happen with its current licensing
 scheme. Without it, BitKeeper would never become the next CVS, which
 was his intention in the first place.
 </p>
 <tr>
 <td>
 <p>
-"Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, 
-even though checkered by failure, than to rank with those poor 
-spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they 
-live in the gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat." 
+"Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs,
+even though checkered by failure, than to rank with those poor
+spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they
+live in the gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat."
 (Theodore Roosevelt)
 </p>
 </td>
 </table>
 
 <p>
-The choice McVoy and Co. must make is now. Subversion and other 
+The choice McVoy and Co. must make is now. Subversion and other
 open-source alternatives may not be feature by feature compatible
 with BitKeeper at present, but they may become so in the future. There
 were times where an open-source project surpassed the functionality
 of a proprietary alternative, even though seemingly the latter had
-more resources at its disposal. This may happen to BitKeeper. Or 
-just most open-source developers would settle for something less 
-able. 
+more resources at its disposal. This may happen to BitKeeper. Or
+just most open-source developers would settle for something less
+able.
 </p>
 
 <p>
-I am already involved in Subversion, and while it progresses 
+I am already involved in Subversion, and while it progresses
 slowly, there are many interested developers there. The limitations
 of CVS and attempts to resolve them are the talk of the day in
 several Internet forums I subscribe to, or visit. If enough people
-want something better than CVS and Open-Source or something similar, 
-you can be sure they get it. The question is whether it would be 
+want something better than CVS and Open-Source or something similar,
+you can be sure they get it. The question is whether it would be
 BitKeeper.
 </p>
 

src/bk/response_to_rms.html.wml

 <latemp_version_control_id "$Id$" />
 
 <p>
-Richard Stallman has written 
-<a href="http://www.uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0210.1/1767.html">a post</a> 
-to the Linux Kernel mailing list where he criticizes the BitKeeper license 
+Richard Stallman has written
+<a href="http://www.uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0210.1/1767.html">a post</a>
+to the Linux Kernel mailing list where he criticizes the BitKeeper license
 (especially the non-compete clause) and the Linux developers for choosing to
 use it. Yet, his outrage is not founded and misleading. There are better ways
 to confront BitKeeper.
 will not plague other projects. The BitKeeper license is too restrictive for
 most developers (including me, who considers himself an "in-for-free-beer" one)
 and BitKeeper got so much bad publicity that no-one will want to use it. Most
-free software developers out there do not wish to alienate their more 
-"idealistic" members, or to drive away such future ones. While BitMover can 
-boast that it hosts the Linux Kernel, BitKeeper will not become the next CVS 
+free software developers out there do not wish to alienate their more
+"idealistic" members, or to drive away such future ones. While BitMover can
+boast that it hosts the Linux Kernel, BitKeeper will not become the next CVS
 with its current licensing.
 </p>
 
 <p>
-I used BitKeeper at a point. The reason for it is that I ran into CVS' 
+I used BitKeeper at a point. The reason for it is that I ran into CVS'
 limitations and was looking for a better alternative. Of all the alternatives
-I could find (BitKeeper, Aegis, Arch and Subversion) only BitKeeper had a 
+I could find (BitKeeper, Aegis, Arch and Subversion) only BitKeeper had a
 public hosting service - bkbits.net. Eventually, the license change that
 restricted the contents of the repositories to be free software drived me
 away from it, but until then I was very happy with the service.
 </p>
 
 <p>
-At the moment, I am using Subversion, which while not as feature rich as 
+At the moment, I am using Subversion, which while not as feature rich as
 BitKeeper, is certainly very delightful to work with. But I don't have a public
 server somewhere. If Stallman wishes to eliminate BitKeeper's edge, it needs to
-give a centralized service (a la 
+give a centralized service (a la
 <a href="http://sourceforge.net/">SourceForge</a> and friends) for Subversion
 , Aegis or Arch and preferablly all of them. The Free Software Foundation runs
-<a href="http://savannah.gnu.org/">Savannah</a> and he can introduce public 
+<a href="http://savannah.gnu.org/">Savannah</a> and he can introduce public
 hosting there for free software to use with an open-source tool.
 </p>
 
 <p>
-I believe this and only this, will make Larry McVoy rethink BitKeeper's 
-licensing terms. Mr. McVoy is a very capable engineer, but lacks a lot of 
-marketing wisdom common among vendors of marketplace software. To put it in 
-<a href="http://www.joelonsoftware.com/">Joel Spolsky's</a> terms - BitMover is 
+I believe this and only this, will make Larry McVoy rethink BitKeeper's
+licensing terms. Mr. McVoy is a very capable engineer, but lacks a lot of
+marketing wisdom common among vendors of marketplace software. To put it in
+<a href="http://www.joelonsoftware.com/">Joel Spolsky's</a> terms - BitMover is
 a Ben and Jerry's company trying to make a land-grab on a market dominated by
 CVS, a reliable workhorse. Now CVS is fully open-source and free for use, and
-if he wants that BitKeeper would replace it, its license needs to appeal to 
+if he wants that BitKeeper would replace it, its license needs to appeal to
 free software developers. Technical superiority is not alone. (Spolsky and Eric
 Raymond have more on it in their many writings).
 </p>
 
 <p>
-I don't hold McVoy as guilty for trying to sell BitKeeper, which is an 
+I don't hold McVoy as guilty for trying to sell BitKeeper, which is an
 excellent product that took a long time to develop and produce, to vendors
-of internal, closed-source and hardware-assisting software, which are his 
+of internal, closed-source and hardware-assisting software, which are his
 main market. (despite the fact that the free software movement holds internal
 software as sacred and even FS licenses must give way to it) However, I think
-he is over-possesive of BitKeeper to the extent that open-source developers 
+he is over-possesive of BitKeeper to the extent that open-source developers
 (who are his main evangelizers) cannot use it. And without them, BitKeeper would
 be very slowly accepted or even eventually replaced by an equivalent open-source
 alternative.
 
 <p>
 In <a href="relicensing_bk.html">this document</a> I outlined why a change
-of license would do good for BitMover in the long run. Meanwhile, while Mr. 
+of license would do good for BitMover in the long run. Meanwhile, while Mr.
 McVoy is being stubburn and irrational, we can at least force him to re-think
 the license (which is the only problem BitKeeper has), by offering a similar
 service.

src/bk/the-bitkeeper-ghost.html.wml

 
 <p>
 On 30 September 2005, Bryan O'Sullivan, a developer of Mercurial, a version
-control system similar to git, 
+control system similar to git,
 <a href="http://www.selenic.com/pipermail/mercurial/2005-September/004745.html">published a note to the Mercurial mailing list</a> where he explained why he
 no longer could be working on Mercurial:
 </p>
 company, can and should prevent the employees of his customers' from
 contributing to competing version control system. Unfortunately for McVoy,
 the Law is not on his side. Someone who bought the product, is allowed to
-contribute to a competing product under the laws of most countries. While 
+contribute to a competing product under the laws of most countries. While
 it may be marginally legal to impose a non-compete clause for a gratis version
 of a program, a paying customer should be allowed to do so. (Including
 a company that makes a competing product).
 
 <p>
 Judging by what O'Sullivan said, though, Larry McVoy did not imply that he
-was obliged to do so, and O'Sullivan did it out of good will. Still, the 
-question still remains: why should BitMover care that employees of its 
+was obliged to do so, and O'Sullivan did it out of good will. Still, the
+question still remains: why should BitMover care that employees of its
 customers are contributing to competing products?
 </p>
 
 <h3>Paranoia</h3>
 
 <p>
-The answer is simple: 
+The answer is simple:
 <a href="what-bitmover-got-wrong.html#paranoia">Paranoia</a>. Larry McVoy is
-positively paranoid and possessive about BitKeeper. He believes that it is the 
+positively paranoid and possessive about BitKeeper. He believes that it is the
 best product in the market, and that in order to stay ahead others must not be
 able to borrow features or ideas from it. During the entire course of BitKeeper
-history, there were more and more measures taken to ensure that people would 
-not abuse the license, or attempt to compete with BitKeeper. 
+history, there were more and more measures taken to ensure that people would
+not abuse the license, or attempt to compete with BitKeeper.
 I <a href="what-bitmover-got-wrong.html#what_got_wrong">wrote about
 it earlier</a>.
 </p>
 products. There are enough other alternatives around, both open-source and
 commercial, and some of them are superior to BitKeeper in many respects.
 BitKeeper has its share of short-comings, despite what BitMover would like
-you to believe. If you are already using BitKeeper, you are hereby being 
+you to believe. If you are already using BitKeeper, you are hereby being
 recommend to switch to a different version control system.
 </p>
 

src/bk/what-bitmover-got-wrong.html.wml

 
 <div class="note">
 <p>
-It doesn't matter how many people abuse the spirit or the letter of the 
+It doesn't matter how many people abuse the spirit or the letter of the
 license, it matters how many of them would have been paying customers.
 </p>