Re: openbkweb-0.0

[Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com>]

On Sat, Feb 15, 2003 at 07:00:36AM +0200, Aggelos Economopoulos wrote:
> On Saturday 15 February 2003 05:11, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> [...]
> > [ Note that I won't agree to refrain from reverse engineering the
> >   network protocol, as the price of using BK for free.
> >
> >   Chances are I'll never bother, but it's not something I'd willingly
> >   agree to not do, because I prefer to be not allowed to use BK than to
> >   be effectively bound by an eternal NDA. ]
> 
> What makes you think the licence is something like an _eternal_ NDA?
> 
> Larry, I've used bitkeeper for a few months to pull linus's and rik's trees 
> and export them for my own use until about a month ago. I've also tried 
> using it in a single user repository for contest (the benchmark).
> 
> Last week, feeling tempted to dig into arch, I removed all the files from 
> the bitkeeper installation and I did a search-and-unlink of BitKeeper 
> directories, just in case.
> 
> Do you intend to sue me if I ever submit a patch for cvs/subversion/whatever 
> (arch kind of sucks:-) or if I feel like starting my own scm project? (while 
> I think this would be ridiculous I'm not trying to bash you here, it's an 
> honest question regarding Jamie's comment above)

Nobody wins in a lawsuit, at least not at this level.  I don't want to sue
you, that's nuts.  

If you continued use BK and were working on an SCM system, yeah, we'd kick
up a fuss.  Our position is that it was really hard to produce a system 
which doesn't suck and it is a lot easier to copy such a system than it is
to invent one on your own.  So we'd prefer you to figure it out on your 
own than copy what we have done.
-- 
---
Larry McVoy            	 lm at bitmover.com           http://www.bitmover.com/lm