Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 6 Oct 2002 12:15:23 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 6 Oct 2002 12:14:51 -0400 Received: from pc1-cwma1-5-cust51.swa.cable.ntl.com ([80.5.120.51]:25585 "EHLO irongate.swansea.linux.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 6 Oct 2002 12:14:40 -0400 Subject: Re: BK MetaData License Problem? From: Alan Cox To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Manfred Spraul , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Larry McVoy , "David S. Miller" , Linus Torvalds In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.8 (1.0.8-10) Date: 06 Oct 2002 17:29:07 +0100 Message-Id: <1033921747.21257.6.camel@irongate.swansea.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1059 Lines: 22 On Sun, 2002-10-06 at 14:13, Ingo Molnar wrote: > yes, but what i say is that BK *creates* a problem, (just like CVS would > create similar problems) and the license clearly shows that BM is aware of > and tries to handle part of this legal problem. (And given that the BK > metadata is richer than eg. CVS, i suspect it will be a magnified problem > later on.) The onyl real problem BK creates here IMHO is its not possible to use BK to maintain the true master tree of a piece of software, because like everyone else Linux people get security reports/fixes which are set to go out on specific dates by people like CERT. The BK rules prevent anyone from checking a change into their BK tree until the embargo date, which can be a pain in the butt. Fortunately its not a problem to me because I don't use it 8) - 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/