Re: BK kernel workflow

From: James Bruce (bruce_at_andrew.cmu.edu)
Date: 10/28/04

  • Next message: Andrew Morton: "Re: 2.6.9 page allocation failures" 
    Date:	Thu, 28 Oct 2004 05:20:41 -0400
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>

    Linus Torvalds wrote:

    >On Wed, 27 Oct 2004, Roman Zippel wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Linus, what disturbs me here is that I don't see that you don't even try
    >>to acknowledge that the bk license might be part of problem
    >>
    >>
    >
    >Why?
    >
    >What's the problem? You don't like it, you don't use it. It's literally
    >that simple.
    >
    >This is the same thing as with the GPL. I absolutely _detest_ people who
    >whine about the GPL - and there are more GPL haters out there than BK
    >haters. It's _their_ problem.
    >
    >EXACT SAME THING. Nobody has the right to whine about another persons
    >choice of license. You have a choice: use it or don't. Complaining about
    >the license to the author isn't part of it.
    >
    >

    Actually it's not that simple. With the free BK license it's not _your_
    choice that affects validity; It's the choice of any person at your
    company deciding for everyone else. So if one OSDL employee uses the
    free BK licence, *nobody else* at OSDL can work on an SCM, even at home
    in their spare time. Technically, if any one of the other 10,000 people
    at my university work on an SCM, I can't use it either since they pay
    me. I try to bury my head in the sand and think that they aren't. In
    reality however, I can't vouch for what the other 9,999 people are
    doing. Here's the relevant sentence in the license:

    3(d) Notwithstanding any other terms in this License, this License
    is not available to You if You and/or your employer develop, produce,
    sell, and/or resell a product which contains substantially similar
    capabilities of the BitKeeper Software, or, in the reasonable opinion
    of BitMover, competes with the BitKeeper Software.

    IOW: "Not available to You if your employer develops anything
    substantially similar."

    At least 90% of the whining/hate comes from this single clause in the
    license. We know from the past that Larry won't budge on it, and that
    is of course his right. However it is not true to say that this is like
    the GPL, or any MSFT license even. None of them go that far in
    regulating what *other* people can do, especially what they can do at
    home, away from work. My uni just opened a branch campus in Qatar; If
    a student earns $10 to add some feature to SVN, it affects whether I can
    use BK for free at home on an open source project. The alternative is
    paying a $2,600 per year seat license.

    Imagine if in 1991, DOS/Windows cost $2,600 a year, unless you promised
    that neither you nor your employer would work on an operating system.
    That would cause a lot of argument, with pragmatic people trying to use
    the system for ordinary development of non-OSes, and others screaming
    about the "corrupt principles" and pushing alternatives, even if they
    suck in a features comparison. Why is anyone surprised that this is
    happening now with BK?

    BK is by far the best SCM I have ever used, and the only one that
    supports distributed development both sanely and robustly. But frankly,
    it has a clause in its license that will generate arguments without end,
    ones which will *not* go away with time.

    Larry, if anything is wrong in my analysis of the meaning of clause 3c,
    I would love to stand corrected. Preferably that would take the form of
    an updated license. I believe the analysis to be consistent with the
    wording of the clause; Several of my colleagues also analyzed the
    license and came to the exact same conclusions.

    Jim Bruce
    (Sorry for being OT. Having said my only point on this topic, which
    I've held since the BK thing began, I will return to only reading these
    threads, after this one. I welcome off-list discussions and/or flames too.)
    -
    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/

  • Next message: Andrew Morton: "Re: 2.6.9 page allocation failures"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: Social Contract
      ... and not those of his employer, then he used a pirate copy. ... "You are permitted to let other people who do not have a license ... have you ever stayed at a Hotel that had computers in the ... To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx with a subject of "unsubscribe". ...
      (Debian-User)
    • Re: Social Contract
      ... Mike McCarty wrote: ... and not those of his employer, then he used a pirate copy. ... "You are permitted to let other people who do not have a license ... use this software, for their own purposes, so long as you do not ...
      (Debian-User)
    • Re: Which License Should I Use?
      ... > current employer to have any claim on my code in any way. ... relevant state law or possibly talk to a lawyer to find out. ... assuming that you can release the code under an open source ... license and given your lack of an agenda, ...
      (comp.lang.python)
    • Re: Using hobby source code in your job ?
      ... >>the idea that at any time, for any reason, a past, present or future employer ... In the case that the copyright holder licenses the code under the GPL, ... the copyright holder is absolutely free to license the same code under ...
      (comp.lang.c)
    • Re: Using hobby source code in your job ?
      ... >>the idea that at any time, for any reason, a past, present or future employer ... In the case that the copyright holder licenses the code under the GPL, ... the copyright holder is absolutely free to license the same code under ...
      (comp.lang.java.programmer)