The BitKeeper non-compete clause
Posted Oct 10, 2002 5:56 UTC (Thu) by fyodor
In reply to: The BitKeeper non-compete clause
Parent article: The BitKeeper non-compete clause
Yes, this restriction supposedly only applies to the free version.
But Larry can easily exclude people he doesn't like from the paid
version via discriminatory pricing. Note how he immediately threatens
lawsuits when someone posts
the BK pricelist. Even if the pricing was not discriminatory, few
open source hackers have an extra $5,800 lying around for a
single-user Bitkeeper license. So if you are or ever want to be a kernel
hacker, Larry wants you to think long and hard before contributing
that little Subversion or CVS patch. It is true that you can still
"work around" using Bitkeeper for kernel development, but Linus seems
to be encouraging
its use more and more.
I for one plan to resist this bogus, anticompetitive license. I am
surprised the LWN article treaded so lightly. I wonder what they
would have written if the MS EULA was changed to exclude developers of
competing operating systems? I am currently developing the Nmap Security Scanner[plug], but I
hope to find time to help with Subversion as well. The best
way to fight BK is to write a compelling replacement. My best wishes
go out to those who are already doing such admirable work!
to post comments)