Re: [OFF TOPIC] BK license change

Daniel Phillips
2002-04-22T22:53:26Z

On Tuesday 23 April 2002 00:29, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On Apr 22, 2002 00:14 +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > On Monday 22 April 2002 23:35, Larry McVoy wrote:
> > > So that leaves a more selective approach. We can add a clause that says
> > > we reserve the right to insist you either
> > >
> > > a) maintain your changes in public within 90 days of making them, or
> >
> > That's going beyond what the gpl requires. Nobody needs to share their
> > changes unless they distribute the binaries.
>
> But according to the license under which they use BK, they _do_ need to
> make them public.
>
> > > If you have a better idea on how to shut down the abusers without scaring
> > > the legit users, I'm all ears.
> >
> > No need to play mall cop.
>
> Isn't that you calling the kettle black? ;-)

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.

Frankly, I'm finding the whole BitKeeper experience something of a turn-off.
This is clearly not 'just for fun'. OK, I'll make a very serious effort to
stay out of this now.

When I came into this I had a high regard for BitKeeper and every intention
of using/supporting it. That's changed, now that I have a feeling for the
mob mentality behind it.

--
Daniel