Re: openbkweb-0.0

From: Larry McVoy (
Date: Sat Feb 15 2003 - 00:32:26 EST

On Sat, Feb 15, 2003 at 07:00:36AM +0200, Aggelos Economopoulos wrote:
> 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)

Nobody wins in a lawsuit, at least not at this level. I don't want to sue
you, that's nuts.

If you continued use BK and were working on an SCM system, yeah, we'd kick
up a fuss. Our position is that it was really hard to produce a system
which doesn't suck and it is a lot easier to copy such a system than it is
to invent one on your own. So we'd prefer you to figure it out on your
own than copy what we have done.

Larry McVoy            	 lm at  
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Feb 15 2003 - 22:01:00 EST