On Sun, 6 Oct 2002, Larry McVoy wrote:
> > this kind of sudden change in Larry's written opinion within 24 hours is
> > that makes this whole issue dangerous.
>
> What change?
i wanted to say 'apparent change' - as the issue presents itself to me,
based on the incomplete snippets of information i have on this mailing
list. Your first statement reads:
> The clause is specifically designed to target those companies which
> produce or sell commercial SCM systems. [...] The open source developers
> have nothing to worry about.
this reads to me: "even if i'm an SCM developer i am using BK fairly as
long as i license my SCM code under an open-source license." Is this an
incorrect interpretation of your words?
the second statement:
> > Larry, I develop for the Subversion project. Does that mean my license
> > to use bitkeeper is revoked?
>
> Yes. It has been since we shipped that license or when you started
> working on Subversion, whichever came last.
Subversion itself appears to be licensed under a Apache-ish license, so a
cursory interpretation of the first statement qualifies it as an
'open-source' project. It might or might not be worth anything, it might
or might not be related to a commercial entity otherwise, like each and
every other open-source project - commercial activities and open-source do
not exclude each other.
Ingo
-
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 - 22:00:54 EST