On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 09:12:19AM -0800, Larry McVoy wrote: > > >So how would you suggest that we resolve it? The protection we need is > > >that people don't get to > > > > > > - use BK > > > - stop using BK so they can go work on another system > > > - start using BK again > > > - stop using BK so they can go work on another system > > > > What??? Why not? BK is a PROGRAM. You can't tell somebody > > that once they use some program in one job, they can't > > use it again. What kind of "protection" are you claiming? > > It is a program that comes with a license. Licenses have terms which > survive the termination of the license, that's industry standard, they > all have such terms. > > In this case the situation is unusual because we have a program that is > ahead, in some ways, of all the other programs out there that do the > same thing. We'd like to protect that lead. We put that lead at risk > by giving you BK for free, that's more or less suicide because the open > source world has a long track record of copying that which they find > useful. We don't want you to copy it. If you can't agree to not copy > it then you don't get to use it in the first place.
Does these license terms (the ones concerning developing competing software while, or within a year of, using BK) also apply to the commercial license? BTW: Wishlist request. Would you consider adding -p (--show-c-function) to the set of flags used for the diffs created by BitKeeper? Regards: David Weinehall -- /) David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> /) Northern lights wander (\ // Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel // Dance across the winter sky // \) http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ (/ Full colour fire (/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
