From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261747AbVBOPUV (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Feb 2005 10:20:21 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261752AbVBOPUV (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Feb 2005 10:20:21 -0500 Received: from a4.complang.tuwien.ac.at ([128.130.173.65]:17323 "EHLO a4.complang.tuwien.ac.at") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261747AbVBOPUB (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Feb 2005 10:20:01 -0500 X-mailer: xrn 9.03-beta-14 From: anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) Subject: Re: [BK] upgrade will be needed To: Alexandre Oliva Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, lm@bitmover.com (Larry McVoy) X-Newsgroups: linux.kernel In-reply-to: Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 14:55:48 GMT Message-ID: <2005Feb15.155548@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Alexandre Oliva writes: >They can always pay for the non-free license to get that, I suppose. As far as I understand it, there are only non-free licences for Bitkeeper. For one you pay with money, for the other with freedom. While I am posting in this thread, I have a few questions to Larry McVoy: - You wrote that you could not develop Bitkeeper as free software, because it is economically not viable. You also write that you put the non-compete clause in the pay-with-freedom license, because you don't want to see a free clone of bitkeeper eat your business. So do you consider a free Bitkeeper-like system economically viable after all? - You say that all information is there, in the form of the patches. Could Bitkeeper reconstruct the Linux tree(s) from the patches alone? - anton -- M. Anton Ertl Some things have to be seen to be believed anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at Most things have to be believed to be seen http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html