From: Ed Tomlinson <tomlins@cam.org>
Organization: me
To: Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com>
Subject: Re: [BK] upgrade will be needed
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 21:13:14 -0500
User-Agent: KMail/1.7.2
Cc: Jeff Sipek <jeffpc@optonline.net>,
       Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@gmail.com>,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20050214020802.GA3047@bitmover.com> <20050214150820.GA21961@optonline.net> <20050214154015.GA8075@bitmover.com>
In-Reply-To: <20050214154015.GA8075@bitmover.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200502142113.15269.tomlins@cam.org>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 3303
Lines: 65

On Monday 14 February 2005 10:40, Larry McVoy wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 10:08:20AM -0500, Jeff Sipek wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 01:08:58PM +0100, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> > > On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 18:08:02 -0800, Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com> wrote:
> > > > is to clarify the non-compete stuff.  We've had some people who have
> > > > indicated that they believed that if they used BK they were agreeing
> > > > that they would never work on another SCM system.  We can see how it
> > > > is possible that people would interpret the license that way but that
> > > > wasn't our intent.  What we would like to do is change the language to
> > > > say that if you use BK you are agreeing that you won't work on another
> > > > SCM for 1 year after you stop using BK.  But after that you would be
> > > 
> > > I don't even plan working on some SCM system, but being
> > > tainted for 1 year for just *using* BK is not worth the price IMHO.
> > 
> > I agree, the price is just too high. No matter how much I like BK, I
> > would give it up.
> 
> The way some people are reading the license the price is even higher,
> they think it is a forever tainted license as it stands today.  I've had
> specific requests to clarify this part of the license.
> 
> So how would you suggest that we resolve it?  The protection we need is
> that people don't get to

How about just reversing it.  If you work on another scm you cannot use
_free_ bk for 1 year after you stop. 

Ed Tomlinson


>     - use BK
>     - stop using BK so they can go work on another system
>     - start using BK again
>     - stop using BK so they can go work on another system
>     ...
> 
> We could say that if you stop using BK and work on another system then
> you can't ever use it again.  We're not going to do that, we've already
> had to calm the fears of people who found themselves in that situation
> for their job.  
> 
> So what do you want us to do?  This isn't a change to take stuff from
> you, it's a change that some of your peers asked us to do so they could
> use BK (and it would be nice if the people who wanted this are reading
> this thread and will speak up so it doesn't look like I'm making it up).
> 
> What we've been doing so far is telling people who were worried to act as
> if there were a year long gap and they have been happy with that answer
> but they are asking for us to put it in the license so they don't have
> to depend on some email based side agreement.
> 
> It would be nice if you could talk this over amongst yourselves and
> suggest an answer.  I can see why you think it is a bad change, I'm hoping
> that you can see why other people may want us to make this sort of change.
> Maybe if you think about it a bit you'll come up with a better solution.
> Or maybe we will.  Either way, I can't be very involved in the process,
> I'm taking off for a week long vacation starting Wednesday and I won't
> have email access.  Which will be a good way to make sure that if this 
> turns into a flame war I won't be prolonging it.
-
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/