Re: [BK] upgrade will be needed

[Anton Ertl]

Alexandre Oliva writes:
>They can always pay for the non-free license to get that, I suppose.

As far as I understand it, there are only non-free licences for
Bitkeeper.  For one you pay with money, for the other with freedom.

While I am posting in this thread, I have a few questions to Larry
McVoy:

- You wrote that you could not develop Bitkeeper as free software,
because it is economically not viable.  You also write that you put
the non-compete clause in the pay-with-freedom license, because you
don't want to see a free clone of bitkeeper eat your business.  So do
you consider a free Bitkeeper-like system economically viable after
all?

- You say that all information is there, in the form of the patches.
Could Bitkeeper reconstruct the Linux tree(s) from the patches alone?

  - anton
-- 
M. Anton Ertl                    Some things have to be seen to be believed
anton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Most things have to be believed to be seen
http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
-
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/