Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+willy=40w.ods.org@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id <S262279AbSJFWax>; Sun, 6 Oct 2002 18:30:53 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S262303AbSJFWaw>; Sun, 6 Oct 2002 18:30:52 -0400
Received: from bitmover.com ([192.132.92.2]:59537 "EHLO mail.bitmover.com")
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id <S262279AbSJFWat>;
	Sun, 6 Oct 2002 18:30:49 -0400
Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2002 15:36:25 -0700
From: Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com>
To: Robert Love <rml@tech9.net>
Cc: Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com>, Miquel van Smoorenburg <miquels@cistron.nl>,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: New BK License Problem?
Message-ID: <20021006153625.U29486@work.bitmover.com>
Mail-Followup-To: Larry McVoy <lm@work.bitmover.com>,
	Robert Love <rml@tech9.net>, Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com>,
	Miquel van Smoorenburg <miquels@cistron.nl>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20021006075627.I9032@work.bitmover.com> <Pine.LNX.4.44.0210061718370.9062-100000@localhost.localdomain> <anqa2m$cr4$2@ncc1701.cistron.net> <20021006150554.T29486@work.bitmover.com> <1033942743.27093.24.camel@phantasy>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i
In-Reply-To: <1033942743.27093.24.camel@phantasy>; from rml@tech9.net on Sun, Oct 06, 2002 at 06:19:03PM -0400
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2445
Lines: 43

On Sun, Oct 06, 2002 at 06:19:03PM -0400, Robert Love wrote:
> your competitors for free - nor should you.  But BitKeeper is now in a
> position where it is a main-stay in kernel development and it is crucial
> to resolve issues like this.  I do not feel arguments like "you get what
> you pay for" or "that is life" are valid, anymore: developers are
> relying on BK and the choice is to resolve the issues or drop BK
> altogether -- not just "live with it".

As I've said repeatedly, show me a better solution to the set of problems,
I'll look at it.  So far, there is a flood of "oh, my god, larry is the
devil and is going to make bk do <insert evil thing here>".  Not helpful.

The real answer isn't "live with it", the real answer is to consider the
health of the organization that gives you BK, consider the things that
you want, propose answers that take *both* sets of issues into account.

We could have worded that clause differently, several people have proposed
changes similar to ones we considered.  If you assume everyone is an
honorable and nice guy then it doesn't really matter, you could have
a license that says "you are granted everything so long as you do the
right thing".  That actually works if people do the right thing and there
is widespread agreement on the right thing.  They don't and there isn't.
So we have to restrict things that would do us damage.  We haven't found
any way to say it in a way that doesn't make you nervous because all of
those ways just open the door to the bad guys.

I'm open to suggestions.  Just make ones that make sense.  I hear your
fears, I'm not saying your fears are invalid, they are very valid,
extremely valid in the event that I lose control of the company.
I'd welcome a license that protected the company and protected you,
especially if that license outlives any change in power here.  We tried.
You don't like it.  Come up with something better, just remember that
if it doesn't protect the hand, that hand can't feed you.  Right now at
least, it's important that we stay healthy, you still need BK to move
forward, it's far from perfect.
-- 
---
Larry McVoy            	 lm at bitmover.com           http://www.bitmover.com/lm 
-
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/