[lkml]   [2003]   [Feb]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: openbkweb-0.0
On Saturday 15 February 2003 05:11, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> [ Note that I won't agree to refrain from reverse engineering the
> network protocol, as the price of using BK for free.
> Chances are I'll never bother, but it's not something I'd willingly
> agree to not do, because I prefer to be not allowed to use BK than to
> be effectively bound by an eternal NDA. ]

What makes you think the licence is something like an _eternal_ NDA?

Larry, I've used bitkeeper for a few months to pull linus's and rik's trees
and export them for my own use until about a month ago. I've also tried
using it in a single user repository for contest (the benchmark).

Last week, feeling tempted to dig into arch, I removed all the files from
the bitkeeper installation and I did a search-and-unlink of BitKeeper
directories, just in case.

Do you intend to sue me if I ever submit a patch for cvs/subversion/whatever
(arch kind of sucks:-) or if I feel like starting my own scm project? (while
I think this would be ridiculous I'm not trying to bash you here, it's an
honest question regarding Jamie's comment above)


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 13:33    [W:0.071 / U:1.528 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site