Re: New BK License Problem?

Rob Landley
2002-10-07T06:16:02Z

It's Interesting what question Larry is going out of his way NOT to answer.

Ingo asked:

> what happens if Linux merges some sort of kernel based versioned
> filesystem, eg. something similar to what ClearCase does today?

Larry responded, unhelpefully:

> I think the license is clear on that point.

So why did Ingo ask the question? Oh well.

Ingo again:

> so BK cannot be used to access the kernel tree in that case, correct? I'm
> just wondering where the boundary line is. Eg. if i started working on a
> versioned filesystem today, i'd not be allowed to use BK. I just have to
> keep stuff like that in mind when using BK.

Larry responded again, but again ducked the question, choosing insead to talk
about ClearCase.

It seems pretty clear that the people who object to BitKeeper have an easy
way to force it out out of Kernel developent: You don't have to reproduce
bitkeeper, just write a version controlled filesystem (or version control
extension to an existing filesystem) that Linus likes enough to include in
the tree. (EVMS probably doesn't qualify as such, but I'm sure Larry could
make a case it does if he really wanted to. So nobody really has a license
to use no-charge bitkeeper, they really just have permission as long as
Larry's in a good mood. But this is nothing new, is it?)

It's possible that a version controlled filesystem will never be accepted
into the Linux tree just because Linus wouldn't want to give up bitkeeper.
Oh well. Can't say I've ever personally had a need for one, and you could
always do it via Coda, assuming the existince of such a tool wouldn't taint
the Coda parts of the kernel... :)

Rob