lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Feb]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [BK] upgrade will be needed
On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 01:08:58PM +0100, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 18:08:02 -0800, Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com> wrote:
> > is to clarify the non-compete stuff. We've had some people who have
> > indicated that they believed that if they used BK they were agreeing
> > that they would never work on another SCM system. We can see how it
> > is possible that people would interpret the license that way but that
> > wasn't our intent. What we would like to do is change the language to
> > say that if you use BK you are agreeing that you won't work on another
> > SCM for 1 year after you stop using BK. But after that you would be
>
> I don't even plan working on some SCM system, but being
> tainted for 1 year for just *using* BK is not worth the price IMHO.

I agree, the price is just too high. No matter how much I like BK, I
would give it up.

Jeff.
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:10    [W:0.149 / U:0.112 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site