Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 10:10:37 -0700
From: Craig Dickson <crdic@pacbell.net>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: New BK License Problem?
Message-ID: <20021007171037.GA13653@linux700.localnet>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1300
Lines: 26

Larry McVoy wrote:

> If there were some way to say "it's only a problem if you or someone
> you work with develops..." and make that stick, that would be OK. We
> don't know how to do that. I'm open to suggestions, it would be good
> to not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Could you clarify exactly why it is a problem that someone both uses
BitKeeper and works on potentially-competing SCM systems, if the two
activities are unrelated? I can understand that you would not want
someone using BK for free on a project that is itself competitive with
BK (because that would amount to using your own product against you),
but I don't quite see why it is a problem if someone uses BK only for,
say, Linux kernel work, and also separately works on some other SCM
system such as Subversion or Arch. Is it that you think that direct
experience with BK will give someone insight into its pluses and minuses
beyond what they could get from just reading about it, thereby
indirectly making their competing product better? Or is it some other
reason?

Craig
-
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/