[lkml]   [2002]   [Oct]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: New BK License Problem?
    On Sat, Oct 05, 2002 at 09:19:41PM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote:
    > On Sat, 5 Oct 2002, Larry McVoy wrote:
    > > If someone has a magic way of saying "you can use the software if and
    > > only if your use of it does not put BitMover at financial risk"
    > The main complaint I've heard now is "if I develop a product
    > that competes with bitkeeper, won't I be able to grab <free
    > software project available in BK> any more ??"
    > A fix for this would be "make patches available from". is a free service. It costs us about $1600/month in cash
    to run it, that doesn't count any salaries, that's just fixed costs.
    If rsync and/or ftp didn't use about 100x as much bandwidth to do what
    BK does we'd have already done what you are asking. We simply can't
    afford it.

    But as I said to someone else, why doesn't someone register ""
    and use BK to mirror the repos and then provide the tarballs/patches as
    you see fit.

    I'm quite happy to help someone set this up, I'm just not willing to
    foot the bill. The bandwidth costs will kill you. could
    do this and that would be fine with me.
    Larry McVoy lm at
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:29    [W:0.021 / U:21.336 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site