Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 5 Oct 2002 20:14:25 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 5 Oct 2002 20:14:25 -0400 Received: from 2-225.ctame701-1.telepar.net.br ([200.193.160.225]:42962 "EHLO 2-225.ctame701-1.telepar.net.br") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 5 Oct 2002 20:14:24 -0400 Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 21:19:41 -0300 (BRT) From: Rik van Riel X-X-Sender: riel@imladris.surriel.com To: Larry McVoy cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: New BK License Problem? In-Reply-To: <20021005081039.Z835@work.bitmover.com> Message-ID: X-spambait: aardvark@kernelnewbies.org X-spammeplease: aardvark@nl.linux.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 989 Lines: 30 On Sat, 5 Oct 2002, Larry McVoy wrote: > If someone has a magic way of saying "you can use the software if and > only if your use of it does not put BitMover at financial risk" The main complaint I've heard now is "if I develop a product that competes with bitkeeper, won't I be able to grab any more ??" A fix for this would be "make patches available from bkbits.net". This way everybody can still get the free software, they just won't have the benefits of bitkeeper's version control or other nice luxuries. regards, Rik -- Bravely reimplemented by the knights who say "NIH". http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/ Spamtraps of the month: september@surriel.com trac@trac.org - 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/