> I noticed Larry recently changed the license on bk. Once clause in
This isn't a recent change at all, I know it is at least 6 months old
because it was included in
BitKeeper version is bk-2.1.6-pre5 20020330075529 for x86-glibc22-linux
Built by: lm@redhat71.bitmover.com in /build/bk-2.1.x-lm/src
Built on: Sat Mar 30 00:14:45 PST 2002
> (d) Notwithstanding any other terms in this License, this
> License is not available to You if You and/or your
> employer develop, produce, sell, and/or resell a
> product which contains substantially similar capabil-
> ities of the BitKeeper Software, or, in the reason-
> able opinion of BitMover, competes with the BitKeeper
> Software.
>
> Doesn't this affect maintainers all across the map that work for
> distros such as RedHat, SuSE, Connectiva, etc? Obviously these distros
> SELL as part of their respective products CVS and similar tools. Or
> even non-distro open source shops, you even resell CVS or the like in
> some way and you'd be in trouble.
Distributions do not *SELL* CVS, they distribute CVS. We choose those
words with care for exactly that reason. All the clause is saying is
that if you are a competitor you don't get to use our product for free.
That it, in our opinion, a perfectly reasonable position to take.
> While I am all for Larry having a profitable business, this would seem
> to be a change which is not Open Source developer friendly.
The clause is specifically designed to target those companies which
produce or sell commercial SCM systems. That's why we explicitly
left out "distribute". The open source developers have nothing to
worry about.
-- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 07 2002 - 22:00:47 EST