Re: [BK] upgrade will be needed

[Larry McVoy]

On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 09:13:14PM -0500, Ed Tomlinson wrote:
> > The way some people are reading the license the price is even higher,
> > they think it is a forever tainted license as it stands today.  I've had
> > specific requests to clarify this part of the license.
> > 
> > So how would you suggest that we resolve it?  The protection we need is
> > that people don't get to
> 
> How about just reversing it.  If you work on another scm you cannot use
> _free_ bk for 1 year after you stop. 

Hi Ed, thanks for the thought.  We've discussed this idea before with
some managers of open source developers and found that no matter which
one we pick some people don't like it.  People tend to cluster up based on
whether they value working on $SCM more or using BK more.  If they want to
preserve the ability to move people to working on competing products then
they would like the option you suggested.  If they are more interested
in using BK then they would prefer the other way.  The people we spoke
with were far more interested in the ability to move people onto BK when
they needed to.

But it's a good idea and we'd certainly be willing to flip to your way
on a case by case basis.
-- 
---
Larry McVoy                lm at bitmover.com           http://www.bitkeeper.com
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/