From: John Bradford <john@grabjohn.com>
Message-Id: <200302131656.h1DGu389013947@darkstar.example.net>
Subject: Re: openbkweb-0.0
To: lm@bitmover.com (Larry McVoy)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 16:56:03 +0000 (GMT)
Cc: riel@imladris.surriel.com, jamie@shareable.org, andrea@e-mind.com,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
In-Reply-To: <20030213161337.GA9654@work.bitmover.com> from "Larry McVoy" at Feb 13, 2003 08:13:37 AM
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1245
Lines: 27

> We'd view reverse engineering the protocol as falling under the "you're
> working on a competing implementation".  
> 
> The general message is that you are free to use BK but you aren't free
> to use BK in any way which could hurt the business which produces BK.

I don't really see the point of spending any time trying to make a set
of open source tools to access BK repositories, unless Larry decides
to make the necessary protocol information available.

That time could be better spent developing a complete alternative to
BK, which would benefit everybody - at the moment, practically all of
the innovation in source management that I can see is coming from
Bitmover.  If a free alternative to BK was developed, both it's
development team and BitMover could work together on ideas, and then
go and implement them in their own ways. 

Oh, and before anybody suggests that I develop free alternative to
BK myself, I am too busy working on the Kernel Bug Database and other
projects :-).

John.
-
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/