Re: [BK] upgrade will be needed

Ed Tomlinson
2005-02-15T12:41:13Z

On Monday 14 February 2005 21:40, Larry McVoy wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 09:13:14PM -0500, Ed Tomlinson wrote:
> > > 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.
>
> Hi Ed, thanks for the thought. We've discussed this idea before with
> some managers of open source developers and found that no matter which
> one we pick some people don't like it. People tend to cluster up based on
> whether they value working on $SCM more or using BK more. If they want to
> preserve the ability to move people to working on competing products then
> they would like the option you suggested. If they are more interested
> in using BK then they would prefer the other way. The people we spoke
> with were far more interested in the ability to move people onto BK when
> they needed to.
>
> But it's a good idea and we'd certainly be willing to flip to your way
> on a case by case basis.

Thanks. My though was that this was less restrictive as there is an option to
purchase a nonfree licence in there and sales are almost always a good thing.

<grin>
Ed