Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 27 Apr 2002 16:36:30 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 27 Apr 2002 16:35:34 -0400 Received: from bitmover.com ([192.132.92.2]:42965 "EHLO bitmover.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 27 Apr 2002 16:34:43 -0400 Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2002 13:34:42 -0700 From: Larry McVoy To: Florian Weimer Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [OFF TOPIC] BK license change Message-ID: <20020427133442.A31314@work.bitmover.com> Mail-Followup-To: Larry McVoy , Florian Weimer , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20020421095715.A10525@work.bitmover.com> <20020422143527.K18800@work.bitmover.com> <20020425150158.A88@toy.ucw.cz> <878z79fpzv.fsf@CERT.Uni-Stuttgart.DE> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Apologies in advance for contributing to this thread, but I think this is a fairly calm and reasonable response which sums up our position. You may not like it, but it may help to understand it. On Sat, Apr 27, 2002 at 11:30:12AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > Pavel Machek writes: > > Oh and btw how can you change licence retroactively? Those "abusers" have > > right to continue to use old versions under old licences... > > BK licenses become invalid as soon as a new BK version is released > which contains bug fixes or behaves differently in any way. The license says that you have to upgrade if your version will not pass the current regressions. In other words, if we have fixed a problem, written a test case for it, shipped the fixed version and the test case, then yes, you need to upgrade. If it was important enough that we wrote a test case for it, it's probably something you'll end up hitting sooner or later. This is not directed at Florian, but to the whole list: Another thing to think about is that we need to get something from the people who use it for free. We support them, that support costs money, and if we get nothing back, we're pretty much doomed compared to any other company. What we are asking back is that you test the latest and greatest. Our business model is that we give and get to/from everyone. The free users get an expensive product for free, but they have to give back by helping shake out the bugs from the current release. The paying users have the right to sit on an old version, but they give back by paying. It's really just an optimization problem. What we've done is to optimize for the most that we can do for the most people. I'm well aware that some free software folks hate that it isn't open source, that's just not realistic for this sort of product. It seems like every couple of weeks someone says they don't like the BK license and they are going to rewrite BitKeeper. I have two thoughts on that: (A) I doubt it will happen, it's more work than it looks like. If you want to spend a few years working 7 days a week, be my guest. Most people don't have the stomach for it. (B) If someone did write a decent open source replacement, that would actually be OK with me. All of the people who work at BitMover are capable of doing work on much more lucrative endeavors. In short: go build a better answer, and until you do it, how about easing off on the "BK is evil corporate software" mantra a bit? It's not evil corporate software, it's software built by people from your community, for your community, in the most acceptable we could find which was self sustaining. -- --- 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/