Re: [OFF TOPIC] BK license change

Daniel Phillips
2002-04-22T23:34:14Z

On Tuesday 23 April 2002 01:12, Doug Ledford wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 22, 2002 at 12:52:48AM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > Larry's proposing to turn BitKeeper into an automated GPL enforcement machine,
> > even poking it's nose into areas the GPL isn't concerned about. This is a
> > horribly broken reason for adding let more t&c's do the license.
>
> You didn't read Larry's initial email very close. He isn't trying to turn
> BK into a GPL enforcing machine, he's trying to turn BK into a BK License
> enforcing machine.

He said:

> The real issue is that we know from past history that companies make
> changes to GPLed software and then delay access to those changes as
> long as they can (the GPL allows for a "reasonable" amount of lag,
> whatever that is).
>
> The intent of the openlogging requirement was to allow people to work
> out in the open on free software, at no charge. The intent was never
> to allow people to work on free software without giving their changes
> back.

It looks like GPL enforcement is the pretext for the changes. Ah well, it's
not my concern, he can make BitKeeper as intrusive as he likes, fortunately
I am not going to be annoyed by that because I'm just taking a pass on the
whole thing. Thanks to the recent discussion, which opened my eyes.

I'm glad it's helping Linus to scale, much as Microsoft Office helps office
workers to scale. That's good I suppose. I keep telling myself.

> Larry lets certain people (such as linux kernel
> hackers) use BK for free. He does that specifically for contributors
> to open source projects. Some people are, in essence, signing up to use
> the software as though they are working on open source projects but they
> are never actually open sourcing their work (or are intentionally
> obfuscating parts of it).

Wait. I thought people were perfectly able to do whatever they wanted with
BitKeeper, so long as they use the open logging. I guess I was wrong about
that. This is getting more anal all the time.

> Since that violates the spirit of what Larry is
> trying to do by letting people use BK in a non-commercial manner, he is
> trying to find appropriate wording and possibly algorithms that can be put
> into BK to enforce the original spirit of the free use license that BK
> allows certain people.

It's impossible not to read that as 'add more restrictions'.

> So, he's not poking his nose into the GPL, he's
> trying to find a way to make sure that people who claim to be using BK on
> GPL projects (and free of charge as a result) are actually doing so.
> That's perfectly within his rights as owner of BK.

Indeed. Just one more reason to build a replacement I suppose.

--
Daniel