Re: [BK] upgrade will be needed

linux-os
2005-02-14T16:24:12Z

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 lm@bitmover.com 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
>
> - 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
> ...

What??? Why not? BK is a PROGRAM. You can't tell somebody
that once they use some program in one job, they can't
use it again. What kind of "protection" are you claiming?

Would you think that IBM could restrict persons who
learned FORTRAN to never use FORTRAN again should they
change jobs? Or that they need to wait some time-limit?

Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.6.10 on an i686 machine (5537.79 BogoMips).
Notice : All mail here is now cached for review by Dictator Bush.
98.36% of all statistics are fiction.