Re: BK is *evil* corporate software [was Re: New BK License Problem?]

Pavel Machek
2002-10-07T20:38:37Z

Hi!

> >>We're a business. We're a business which happens to be committed to
> >>helping the kernel team because we think that the kernel is vital to
> >>the world at large. Helping the kernel absolutely does not translate
> >>to helping people who happen to be our competitors. By your own
> >
> >Stop lying. Your job is to make lots of money and you are using Linux
> >as cheap advertising. You are trying to make people pay *you* to do
> >kernel development (as it stands you want $5000 for any bk-using
> >developer inside RedHat and SuSE).
>
> O Please! As the person that started this thread this is way way way
> way out there and quite frankly I find offensive.
>
> I do NOT honestly think that Larry made the change to the license that
> he did for the express purpose of milking some set of companies out of
> $$$$. That's just dumb.

Maybe it is doing for purpose of slowing down subversion/CVS/arch
development. Thats about as bad.

> Granted it's a different kind of license, (IE Microsoft doesn't have a
> clause in IE that says Netscape developers can't use IE) but hey, it's
> Larry's company and he's perfectly in his rights to do so. It is
> truely a good thing that Larry is allowing some set of us in the open
> source community to use his product without costs.

Good thing for who?

Good thing for Larry? I don't know.

Good thing for us? I don't think so.

Good thing for subversion developers? Definitely not.

Pavel
--
Casualities in World Trade Center: ~3k dead inside the building,
cryptography in U.S.A. and free speech in Czech Republic.