Re: New BK License Problem?

Robert Love
2002-10-06T22:14:01Z

On Sun, 2002-10-06 at 18:05, Larry McVoy wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 06, 2002 at 09:31:02PM +0000, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
>
> > And what if that versioning filesystem got accepted into mainline?
> > Every kernel developer would have to buy a BK license.
> >
> > Either that or a versioning filesystem cannot get into mainline.
> > Sorry Hans, no reiser4 in the kernel.
>
> If Hans decides to get into the version control space and compete directly
> against us, your position is that we should be obligated to give him free
> seats? And that's reasonable in your mind?

I think the fear is more that via the license you could deny any kernel
seats.

I.e., let's say I never intend to work on reiser4 but it is part of the
source tree I would be working on via BK. Am I at risk?

Or, what if I do not directly work on reiser4 but I do post an ancillary
patch - perhaps to fix a compile issue or update reiser4 to some new
locking change. Am I at risk now?

I agree 100% with your intentions. You are under no obligation to help
your competitors for free - nor should you. But BitKeeper is now in a
position where it is a main-stay in kernel development and it is crucial
to resolve issues like this. I do not feel arguments like "you get what
you pay for" or "that is life" are valid, anymore: developers are
relying on BK and the choice is to resolve the issues or drop BK
altogether -- not just "live with it".

Robert Love