Re: [BK] upgrade will be needed

Ed Tomlinson
2005-02-15T02:13:20Z

On Monday 14 February 2005 10:40, Larry McVoy wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 10:08:20AM -0500, Jeff Sipek wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 01:08:58PM +0100, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> > > On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 18:08:02 -0800, Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com> wrote:
> > > > is to clarify the non-compete stuff. We've had some people who have
> > > > indicated that they believed that if they used BK they were agreeing
> > > > that they would never work on another SCM system. We can see how it
> > > > is possible that people would interpret the license that way but that
> > > > wasn't our intent. What we would like to do is change the language to
> > > > say that if you use BK you are agreeing that you won't work on another
> > > > SCM for 1 year after you stop using BK. But after that you would be
> > >
> > > I don't even plan working on some SCM system, but being
> > > tainted for 1 year for just *using* BK is not worth the price IMHO.
> >
> > I agree, the price is just too high. No matter how much I like BK, I
> > would give it up.
>
> The way some people are reading the license the price is even higher,
> they think it is a forever tainted license as it stands today. I've had
> specific requests to clarify this part of the license.
>
> So how would you suggest that we resolve it? The protection we need is
> that people don't get to

How about just reversing it. If you work on another scm you cannot use
_free_ bk for 1 year after you stop.

Ed Tomlinson

> - use BK
> - stop using BK so they can go work on another system
> - start using BK again
> - stop using BK so they can go work on another system
> ...
>
> We could say that if you stop using BK and work on another system then
> you can't ever use it again. We're not going to do that, we've already
> had to calm the fears of people who found themselves in that situation
> for their job.
>
> So what do you want us to do? This isn't a change to take stuff from
> you, it's a change that some of your peers asked us to do so they could
> use BK (and it would be nice if the people who wanted this are reading
> this thread and will speak up so it doesn't look like I'm making it up).
>
> What we've been doing so far is telling people who were worried to act as
> if there were a year long gap and they have been happy with that answer
> but they are asking for us to put it in the license so they don't have
> to depend on some email based side agreement.
>
> It would be nice if you could talk this over amongst yourselves and
> suggest an answer. I can see why you think it is a bad change, I'm hoping
> that you can see why other people may want us to make this sort of change.
> Maybe if you think about it a bit you'll come up with a better solution.
> Or maybe we will. Either way, I can't be very involved in the process,
> I'm taking off for a week long vacation starting Wednesday and I won't
> have email access. Which will be a good way to make sure that if this
> turns into a flame war I won't be prolonging it.