From: david parsons <orc@pell.portland.or.us>
To: lm@work.bitmover.com (Larry McVoy)
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bitkeeper-announce@work.bitmover.com
Subject: Re: [Bitkeeper-announce] RFC: BK license change
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 18:26:45 -0700 (PDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200208240126.SAA07349@pell.portland.or.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200208240039.g7O0dZf12300@work.bitmover.com> from "Larry McVoy" at Aug 23, 2002 05:39:35 PM
Larry McVoy wrote:
>
> No, we're not GPLing it but we are making a few adjustments and wanted to
> make sure that it was an improvement, not a regression, in the eyes of
> the free users. Sorry for the intrusion, I'll be as brief as possible.
>
> 3(c) Maintaining Open Source. Our intent was that the free use of
> BitKeeper was for the purpose of helping the open source community;
> it was not to provide commercial users a free product. We have had
> a number of cases where managers up to VPs have told their engineers
> "just don't put anything useful in the checkin comments and then we
> can use it for free". Not what we had in mind. So we're adding
> a clause which says that we reserve the right to insist that you
> make your repositories available on a public port within 15 days
> of the request.
This addendum is somewhat [1] annoying, because I switched over to
BK for _everything_ a couple of years ago and now I've got a
moderately large body of stuff that is NOT open source (my resume,
my dns, little proofs of concept projects that I did for people.
I've not made one red penny off any of this [particularly since the
economy has gone south and put me out of work for the past year.
But I'm still not opensourcing my resume.]) that's under bitkeeper.
If I upgrade to a bk that uses the new license, then I get to play
the exciting game of ``break the new license and defraud my former
employers'' [2], which is about as appealing as Linus's alternative
approach to resolving software patent issues.
____
david parsons \bi/ [1: pronounced ``extremely'']
\/ [2: or, alternatively, buy it, but this involves
bitmover actually telling me how much it would
cost AND having a job[3] so I could buy it.]
[3: The Oregon economy really sucks, so this is
filed under the category of ``sick jokes'' ]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-08-24 1:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-08-24 0:39 Larry McVoy
2002-08-24 1:26 ` david parsons [this message]
2002-08-24 15:12 ` BKWeb Feature request [Was: BK license change] Sam Ravnborg
2002-08-24 15:11 ` Larry McVoy
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200208240126.SAA07349@pell.portland.or.us \
--to=orc@pell.portland.or.us \
--cc=bitkeeper-announce@work.bitmover.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lm@work.bitmover.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®