lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Oct]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
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 bkbits.net".

bkbits.net 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 "nobkbits.net"
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. kernel.org could
do this and that would be fine with me.
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
-
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/
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:29    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans