Re: New BK License Problem?

Ben Collins
2002-10-05T17:49:10Z

> > (d) Notwithstanding any other terms in this License, this
> > License is not available to You if You and/or your
> > employer develop, produce, sell, and/or resell a
> > product which contains substantially similar capabil-
> > ities of the BitKeeper Software, or, in the reason-
> > able opinion of BitMover, competes with the BitKeeper
> > Software.
> >
> > Doesn't this affect maintainers all across the map that work for
> > distros such as RedHat, SuSE, Connectiva, etc? Obviously these distros
> > SELL as part of their respective products CVS and similar tools. Or
> > even non-distro open source shops, you even resell CVS or the like in
> > some way and you'd be in trouble.
>
> Distributions do not *SELL* CVS, they distribute CVS. We choose those
> words with care for exactly that reason. All the clause is saying is
> that if you are a competitor you don't get to use our product for free.
> That it, in our opinion, a perfectly reasonable position to take.

Larry, I develop for the Subversion project. Does that mean my license
to use bitkeeper is revoked?

I've also been wanting to use bitkeeper to create a Subversion mirror of
the kernel repository, but I suspect that my usage falls seriously into
this category, as my reasons for doing so are three-fold; allow access
to the bkbits repo to folks who don't want to use bk, but with all the
joys of an SCM (history, changesets, etc.); stress test Subversion
against a real-world high-activity repo; promote Subversion.

Would it be your intention that your license disallow my type of work? I
think it does.

Ben

--
Debian - http://www.debian.org/
Linux 1394 - http://www.linux1394.org/
Subversion - http://subversion.tigris.org/
Deqo - http://www.deqo.com/