Re: Warning to Debian Developers regarding BitKeeper
On Sun, Oct 06, 2002 at 02:05:44PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
>
> I simply cannot imagine him doing that. BK gets a lot of free good
> publicity because it's used for the kernel; if he did, that would
> instantly turn into a lot of very bad publicity, and a bunch of people
> who would use their experience with BK usage to work on improving
> subversion or arch or ...
Larry has already publicly revoked my license to use bitkeeper under the
gratis license, for no other reason than because I am a subversion
developer. Regardless of what I was using bitkeeper for (my kernel work,
related to linux1394).
The license makes no distinction about what you use bitkeeper for, just
that it you develop for a competing product, (i.e. subversion in my
case) you cannot use it under their gratis license. You must pay the
normal licensing fee in order to use bitkeeper.
This in affect means that all CVS, Arch and Subversion developers are
disallowed from using bitkeeper under the gratis license. No if's and's
or but's. It's black and white.
Whether Larry wants to extend the interpretation and meaning of his own
license is up to him. He is free to interpret it how he wants. If what
he wants does not work, he will change the license (there is a history
of this) and that license supercedes older licenses (it's in the license
that you must always agree to the latest available license revision).
--
Debian - http://www.debian.org/
Linux 1394 - http://www.linux1394.org/
Subversion - http://subversion.tigris.org/
Deqo - http://www.deqo.com/
Reply to: