Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: New BK License Problem? | From | Robert Love <> | Date | 06 Oct 2002 18:19:03 -0400 |
| |
On Sun, 2002-10-06 at 18:05, Larry McVoy wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 06, 2002 at 09:31:02PM +0000, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote: > > > And what if that versioning filesystem got accepted into mainline? > > Every kernel developer would have to buy a BK license. > > > > Either that or a versioning filesystem cannot get into mainline. > > Sorry Hans, no reiser4 in the kernel. > > If Hans decides to get into the version control space and compete directly > against us, your position is that we should be obligated to give him free > seats? And that's reasonable in your mind?
I think the fear is more that via the license you could deny any kernel seats.
I.e., let's say I never intend to work on reiser4 but it is part of the source tree I would be working on via BK. Am I at risk?
Or, what if I do not directly work on reiser4 but I do post an ancillary patch - perhaps to fix a compile issue or update reiser4 to some new locking change. Am I at risk now?
I agree 100% with your intentions. You are under no obligation to help your competitors for free - nor should you. But BitKeeper is now in a position where it is a main-stay in kernel development and it is crucial to resolve issues like this. I do not feel arguments like "you get what you pay for" or "that is life" are valid, anymore: developers are relying on BK and the choice is to resolve the issues or drop BK altogether -- not just "live with it".
Robert Love
- 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/
| |