Messages in this thread | | | From | jbradford@dial ... | Subject | Re: New BK License Problem? | Date | Sat, 5 Oct 2002 16:30:43 +0100 (BST) |
| |
> Try and think about this from our point of view. We provide a complex > yet useful product for free. While doing so accomplishes our goal of > helping the kernel community, it also puts us at far greater risk that > someone will just reimplement the software. Creating this software > was quite difficult and we are not in the business of providing a > roadmap to our competitors, they get to find their own way.
That's somewhat analogous to the situation with Trolltech's QT, before it was GPLed.
> If you want to suggest license changes do so showing that you understand > why we did what we did and show how your changes accomplish that in > a better way. Suggestions like "you guys are idiots, just GPL it and > you can make money from support" just get ignored. Suggestions which > increase, rather than decrease, our risk also get ignored.
You could do what Trolltech originally did, before they GPLed QT, and grant free licenses to developers who are developing free software - no matter who they work for. I.E. If they work for BigFatCompany, Inc, but work on kernel patches in their lunch break, they get to have a free Bitkeeper license, whether they use it on the work computer or their own laptop.
John. - 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/
| |