Re: Warning to Debian Developers regarding BitKeeper
On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 10:49:09AM +1000, Brian May wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 01:32:49AM +0200, Russell Coker wrote:
> > License changes should only occur at the agreement of both parties. This can
> > be done by having a different license for a new version (so you can stick on
> > the old version of accept the new license). Having to potentially change the
> > way you work at the whim of a jerk is ridiculous.
>
> My understanding is that a license is like a contract/agreement between
> two parties. ie. Both parties need to agree to any changes. If you tell
> the other party by agreeing to this license you automatically agree to
> any changes I may feel like making, well... its not really an agreement
> anymore is it? Or rather, you agree to do anything I might say in a
> later license ("you may not use this software or earlier versions,
> without jumping out the window of a ten story building first").
>
> If one party can create a new license without the other party agreeing
> before hand, does this work both ways?
>
> ie. can I create the Bitkeeper License version 2.0, and paste the
> contents of /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-2 into it, and use that as
> the "latest version of the license"?
No, you are looking at this from a free software standpoint. The fact is
that BM is letting you use BK at no cost, under an extrmely restrictive
license. They are allowed to do what they want in this circumstance,
because you have not paid for anything. If you don't like it, do not use
the software, and that's what any judge will tell you.
--
Debian - http://www.debian.org/
Linux 1394 - http://www.linux1394.org/
Subversion - http://subversion.tigris.org/
Deqo - http://www.deqo.com/
Reply to: