Re: Regarding BitKeeper and its price list
> It also says "try not to flame;" clearly it should be disregarded in
> toto.
>
How is this a flame? Branden, thank you for this post. I believe that
Branden was attempting to look out for the best interest of Debian GNU/Linux
and the developers within the project that use the BitKeeper software.
>From what I've read of this thread he was attempting to make sure we all
understood what the license agreement stated so as to ensure that we did not
do something that could potentially subject the project or it's developers
to a lawsuit or other unpleasantries. I see no harm in what's he's done, and
believe that the devel list was the smart place to post it since it directly
relates to developers.
>From where I sit the current licensing scheme for BitKeeper can be read so
broadly as to allow for Larry to come against the project since we have such
items as CVS, arch and other software that performs the same functionality
as BitKeeper. If he is not able to come against the project, he surely can
come against individual developers and their companies through their
association with Debian under the current terms of the license snippets
posted to this list. I believe Branden to be attempting, in good faith, to
ensure we all see a possible way that the license could be construed for
negative impact all around. If he can construe it that way, how hard would
it be for Larry or BitMover to do so? Whether or not he, or they, in fact
_would_ do that is totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand. That then
becomes an ethics argument, which is, to me, beyond the scope of Branden's
original comments.
--
David D.W. Downey <david-downey@codecastle.com> | Upstream -
libpam-pgsql.codecastle.com
Debian - Woody: 0.5.2-3 Sid: 0.5.2-5 | State -
bugs.debian.org/libpam-pgsql
Project Co-Founder: http://ext3sj.codecastle.com - Ext3 Secured Journal
"...The bug which you would fright me with, I seek." William Shakespeare,
The Winter's Tale, III,2
Unix Murder: kill -9 `ps -aef | grep johndoe | awk '{ print $2 }'`
Reply to: