Re: Warning to Debian Developers regarding BitKeeper
Russell Coker <email@example.com> writes:
>> **) anything which, in the "reasonable" opinion of BitMover, competes
>> with BitKeeper
> So I guess that BitMover is likely to say that SOMETHING in Debian competes
> with BitKeeper, after all with 11,000 packages we should have something that
> competes with almost any piece of software imaginable.
Another message makes it quite clear that Larry regards subversion as
a potential competitor, and does not want at least one subversion
developer using BitKeeper.
>> ...you have no license to use the BitKeeper software. To use the
>> software legally under any conjunction of the above circumstances, you
>> will have to pay BitMover for a license.
> So does this mean that ALL Debian developers are banned from using BitKeeper?
That seems less clear. I've read through at least some of the
messages, and it seems that Larry wants to allow at least some IBM
developers to use BitKeeper (for work on the Linux kernel,
presumably), even though IBM is also involved in Stellation (which
he'd presumably regard as a potential competitor to BitKeeper). So it
seems likely that some deal could be struck for those Debian
developers not involved with subversion, Arch, OpenCM (which isn't
currently in Debian, as far as I can see), and possibly other possible
competitors (aegis, maybe).
>> I express no opinion as to whether to the requirements of the BitKeeper
>> license are legitimate, valid, or enforceable in any particular
>> jurisdiction. If you are concerned about this issue, please retain
> Or just cease using BitKeeper entirely. After all if you stop using
> it then you can't be sued (and ceasing to use it is a lot cheaper
> than hiring a lawyer).
Or, if there's some compelling reason for using BitKeeper, explain the
situation to BitMover, and see how they feel about it.