Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+willy=40w.ods.org@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id <S262439AbSJES3z>; Sat, 5 Oct 2002 14:29:55 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S262441AbSJES3z>; Sat, 5 Oct 2002 14:29:55 -0400
Received: from blowme.phunnypharm.org ([65.207.35.140]:59402 "EHLO
	blowme.phunnypharm.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id <S262439AbSJES3y>; Sat, 5 Oct 2002 14:29:54 -0400
Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 14:35:21 -0400
From: Ben Collins <bcollins@debian.org>
To: Larry McVoy <lm@work.bitmover.com>, Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com>,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: New BK License Problem?
Message-ID: <20021005183520.GM585@phunnypharm.org>
References: <AD47B5CD-D7DB-11D6-A2D4-0003939E069A@mac.com> <20021004140802.E24148@work.bitmover.com> <20021005175437.GK585@phunnypharm.org> <20021005112552.A9032@work.bitmover.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20021005112552.A9032@work.bitmover.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2470
Lines: 51

On Sat, Oct 05, 2002 at 11:25:52AM -0700, Larry McVoy wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 05, 2002 at 01:54:37PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> > I've also been wanting to use bitkeeper to create a Subversion mirror of
> > the kernel repository, but I suspect that my usage falls seriously into
> > this category, as my reasons for doing so are three-fold; allow access
> > to the bkbits repo to folks who don't want to use bk, but with all the
> > joys of an SCM (history, changesets, etc.); stress test Subversion
> > against a real-world high-activity repo; promote Subversion.
> > 
> > Would it be your intention that your license disallow my type of work? I
> > think it does.
> 
> You bet it does.  The Subversion folks would like nothing better than
> to displace BK.  That's fine, but they don't get to use BK to do it.
> You're absolutely correct that you could use BK to make Subversion better.
> It is not our job to help you make Subversion better and we've made that
> clear for a long time.

Wow. You've got some bad memory, and some bad prejudice. Fact is, I've
heard many Subversion core developers say, and I quote, "If BK were
open-sourced, we'd just pack up and go home". Fact is, Subversion is not
geared to replace BK, nor has the Subversion team ever claimed it as
such. Fact is, the website clearly states it is a CVS replacement, which
is not on par with what BK does else BK would never have come into
existence.

Sure, let's dig up the old ARM thread we had almost a year ago in
private email and use it to fuel flames in a legitimate thread. Of
course I thought you were about business, yet suddenly this has turned
personal. Let's also not forget some of the helpful emails I've sent you
in private.

You've clearly made your point. I'll delete my copy of BK since I have
no legal license to use it. That's all I wanted to know.

-- 
Debian     - http://www.debian.org/
Linux 1394 - http://www.linux1394.org/
Subversion - http://subversion.tigris.org/
Deqo       - http://www.deqo.com/
-
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/