Re: [BK] upgrade will be needed

Tristan Wibberley
2005-02-15T13:19:48Z

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 02:46:04 +0000, Tristan Wibberley wrote:

> On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 19:54:14 +0100, Juergen Stuber wrote:
>
>> g BK, I can immediately start working on another SCM
>> but I can't go back to BK immediately
>
> IMHO, it should be the other way around, and more like two years.

Hmm, I wasn't really clear here. I think that after using BK, you
shouldn't be able to work on another SCM until 2 years have past. But you
can shorten that time by paying bitmover 1/12 of a BK license for each
month you want to shorten it. That covers the problem of people needing to
switch, they just have to pay. Then the following applies:

> Two years would be more
> appropriate since you need to make sure that coders who've worked on the
> other SCM before are well and truly out of touch with the code when they
> go back. With that scheme, if you have a serious business case for
> writing a new SCM *today* you just have to factor an extra cost into
> your plans (double BK license), and if you want to work on an open
> source one, you just have to wait while BitMover gets another two years
> on their head-start. Now only people with determined plans can switch
> from using BK to working on an SCM, and BitMover can get new users
> benefiting from their kindness and lifting their market penetration as
> easily as possible.

--
Tristan Wibberley