Re: [BK] upgrade will be needed

[David Weinehall]

On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 09:12:19AM -0800, Larry McVoy wrote:
> > >So how would you suggest that we resolve it?  The protection we need is
> > >that people don't get to
> > >
> > >   - use BK
> > >   - stop using BK so they can go work on another system
> > >   - start using BK again
> > >   - stop using BK so they can go work on another system
> > 
> > What??? Why not? BK is a PROGRAM. You can't tell somebody
> > that once they use some program in one job, they can't
> > use it again. What kind of "protection" are you claiming?
> 
> It is a program that comes with a license.  Licenses have terms which
> survive the termination of the license, that's industry standard, they
> all have such terms.
> 
> In this case the situation is unusual because we have a program that is
> ahead, in some ways, of all the other programs out there that do the
> same thing.  We'd like to protect that lead.  We put that lead at risk
> by giving you BK for free, that's more or less suicide because the open
> source world has a long track record of copying that which they find
> useful.  We don't want you to copy it.  If you can't agree to not copy
> it then you don't get to use it in the first place.

Does these license terms (the ones concerning developing competing
software while, or within a year of, using BK) also apply to the
commercial license?

BTW: Wishlist request.  Would you consider adding -p (--show-c-function)
to the set of flags used for the diffs created by BitKeeper?


Regards: David Weinehall
-- 
 /) David Weinehall <tao@xxxxxxxxxx> /) Northern lights wander      (\
//  Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel   //  Dance across the winter sky //
\)  http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/    (/   Full colour fire           (/
-
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/