Re: [BK] upgrade will be needed

David Weinehall
2005-02-17T20:37:22Z

On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 09:12:19AM -0800, Larry McVoy wrote:
> > >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?
>
> It is a program that comes with a license. Licenses have terms which
> survive the termination of the license, that's industry standard, they
> all have such terms.
>
> In this case the situation is unusual because we have a program that is
> ahead, in some ways, of all the other programs out there that do the
> same thing. We'd like to protect that lead. We put that lead at risk
> by giving you BK for free, that's more or less suicide because the open
> source world has a long track record of copying that which they find
> useful. We don't want you to copy it. If you can't agree to not copy
> it then you don't get to use it in the first place.

Does these license terms (the ones concerning developing competing
software while, or within a year of, using BK) also apply to the
commercial license?

BTW: Wishlist request. Would you consider adding -p (--show-c-function)
to the set of flags used for the diffs created by BitKeeper?

Regards: David Weinehall
--
/) David Weinehall <tao@acc.umu.se> /) Northern lights wander (\
// Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel // Dance across the winter sky //
\) http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ (/ Full colour fire (/