lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Jan]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: Is the BitKeeper network protocol documented?
    Date
    Larry McVoy wrote:

    > As far as I can tell your complaint is that you can't have access to
    > the up to minute source view without using something which violates
    > your politics.

    No, without something that violates your license. Nice of him to actually
    respect it :-)

    > The fact that you can get almost real time views via one of many BK to
    > tarball/patch mirrors seems to not be good enough.
    >
    > I guess I don't know how to help you. As far as I can tell, if Linus
    > wasn't using BK he'd still be doing what he was doing up until he started
    > using BK which means you wouldn't have the option of the up to date
    > snapshots you can currently get.

    Yes, a huge thank-you for making this possible... it's easy to forget that
    the max wait time is now an hour, and it used to be weeks... linus's brain
    is a much harder protocol to mirror than bk :-)

    > I fail to see why this is such a big deal, you now have up to the
    > hour snapshots in the form you want where before you had to wait weeks
    > between releases. That's a dramatic improvement over what you had a
    > year ago and complaining that you can't have up to the minute views of
    > the source when the only reason is your politics, well, is it going to
    > seem really unreasonable if I think that maybe your politics are getting
    > in the way of your technical goals?

    Well, I would point out that it's not politics, but rather respect for your
    licensing terms that prevents him from using bk. (this part got snipped
    relatively early, maybe you missed it)

    > Although I am unfortable using closed source software, it seemed
    > pragmatic to fetch and install BitKeeper. I went to bitmover.com, and
    > read the free license before downloading:
    >
    > http://www.bitkeeper.com/Sales.Licensing.Free.html
    >
    > That looked ok. I am allowed to use it. Great!
    >
    > So I downloaded version 3.0, and typed "bk help bkl". I found that
    > the license with the software is different to the licence on the web
    > page.
    >
    > [Note to Larry, you may wish to update the above URL to the
    > current version].
    >
    > Unfortunately, the license that comes with the download adds a new
    > clause 3(d): that's the clause which tells me that actually I'm not
    > allowed to use BitKeeper, because of other software I occasionally
    > work on. (No, I do not work on Subversion, but I do occasionally
    > dabble with sophisticated version management scripts).
    >
    > So, being conscientious and obedient, I removed BitKeeper from my system.

    So, as you said you would consider case by case license grants if this
    clause became a problem when it was last discussed (IIRC anyway, I don't
    mean to put words in your mouth if I'm remembering that thread wrong),
    maybe this would be a good time for one. Or he can use the hourly changeset
    mirror :-)

    -
    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 13:32    [W:0.024 / U:29.440 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site