Re: New BK License Problem?

[Troy Benjegerdes <hozer@hozed.org>]

> Unlike the slashdot kiddies, the courts seem to recognize that the real
> work is in the initial creation of a product, not in the replication of
> that product.  The courts are quite supportive of that point, as well 
> they should be.  They tend to switch sides as one becomes a monopoly,
> but as things stand to day, that is a problem that we'll worry about
> if and when it happens.  I have a feeling I'll be retired before then
> so you can argue with someone else about it.
> -- 

Someone's going to get sued over BK use eventually. (Probably not until
after Larry retires). But I don't want it to wind up a 'scorched earth'
mess where nobody can 'legally' use BK or develop on the kernel for it
while some messy lawsuit is going on.

But until Larry retires, I have found it much easier to think of the 
Bitkeeper license as the "don't piss off Larry license". Don't antagonize 
Larry, or directly mess up his business model, and you'll all get along 
find ;P

-- 
Troy Benjegerdes | master of mispeeling | 'da hozer' |  hozer@drgw.net
-----"If this message isn't misspelled, I didn't write it" -- Me -----
"Why do musicians compose symphonies and poets write poems? They do it
because life wouldn't have any meaning for them if they didn't. That's 
why I draw cartoons. It's my life." -- Charles Schulz