Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 6 Oct 2002 17:37:48 +0200 (CEST) | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: New BK License Problem? |
| |
On Sun, 6 Oct 2002, Larry McVoy wrote:
> > this kind of sudden change in Larry's written opinion within 24 hours is > > that makes this whole issue dangerous. > > What change?
i wanted to say 'apparent change' - as the issue presents itself to me, based on the incomplete snippets of information i have on this mailing list. Your first statement reads:
> The clause is specifically designed to target those companies which > produce or sell commercial SCM systems. [...] The open source developers > have nothing to worry about.
this reads to me: "even if i'm an SCM developer i am using BK fairly as long as i license my SCM code under an open-source license." Is this an incorrect interpretation of your words?
the second statement:
> > Larry, I develop for the Subversion project. Does that mean my license > > to use bitkeeper is revoked? > > Yes. It has been since we shipped that license or when you started > working on Subversion, whichever came last.
Subversion itself appears to be licensed under a Apache-ish license, so a cursory interpretation of the first statement qualifies it as an 'open-source' project. It might or might not be worth anything, it might or might not be related to a commercial entity otherwise, like each and every other open-source project - commercial activities and open-source do not exclude each other.
Ingo
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |