Re: BK MetaData License Problem?

[Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com>]

On Sun, Oct 06, 2002 at 05:29:07PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Sun, 2002-10-06 at 14:13, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > yes, but what i say is that BK *creates* a problem, (just like CVS would
> > create similar problems) and the license clearly shows that BM is aware of
> > and tries to handle part of this legal problem. (And given that the BK
> > metadata is richer than eg. CVS, i suspect it will be a magnified problem
> > later on.)
> 
> The onyl real problem BK creates here IMHO is its not possible to use BK
> to maintain the true master tree of a piece of software, because like
> everyone else Linux people get security reports/fixes which are set to
> go out on specific dates by people like CERT. The BK rules prevent
> anyone from checking a change into their BK tree until the embargo date,
> which can be a pain in the butt.

We could easily fix this at our end.  We already have mechanisms to not
publish openlogging trees, that's how we handle the research/edu waivers,
we could figure out some way to do the same for individual changesets.
-- 
---
Larry McVoy            	 lm at bitmover.com           http://www.bitmover.com/lm