On Sun, 2002-10-06 at 18:05, Larry McVoy wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 06, 2002 at 09:31:02PM +0000, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
>
> > And what if that versioning filesystem got accepted into mainline?
> > Every kernel developer would have to buy a BK license.
> >
> > Either that or a versioning filesystem cannot get into mainline.
> > Sorry Hans, no reiser4 in the kernel.
>
> If Hans decides to get into the version control space and compete directly
> against us, your position is that we should be obligated to give him free
> seats? And that's reasonable in your mind?
I think the fear is more that via the license you could deny any kernel
seats.
I.e., let's say I never intend to work on reiser4 but it is part of the
source tree I would be working on via BK. Am I at risk?
Or, what if I do not directly work on reiser4 but I do post an ancillary
patch - perhaps to fix a compile issue or update reiser4 to some new
locking change. Am I at risk now?
I agree 100% with your intentions. You are under no obligation to help
your competitors for free - nor should you. But BitKeeper is now in a
position where it is a main-stay in kernel development and it is crucial
to resolve issues like this. I do not feel arguments like "you get what
you pay for" or "that is life" are valid, anymore: developers are
relying on BK and the choice is to resolve the issues or drop BK
altogether -- not just "live with it".
Robert Love
-
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 - 22:00:56 EST