| |||||||||||||
Actually, noActually, noPosted Apr 7, 2005 16:42 UTC (Thu) by GreyWizard (guest, #1026)In reply to: Actually, yes by bos Parent article: Linus on the BK withdrawal
http://lwn.net/Articles/103727/
BitMover has actually refused to sell someone a license because they suspected that a developer employed by the prospective customer would contribute to a free software source control system. Maybe paying customers are not prevented from working on source code management tools, but if so that is only because BitMover does a background check to decide whether someone is likely to do so before allowing them to become a paying customer in the first place. Do you really mean to suggest that McVoy would ignore the situation if he discovered a paying customer who had passed this screening process later decided to work on a competing project?
If not then my comments in the grandparent post are exactly correct.
(Log in to post comments)
Actually, no Posted Apr 7, 2005 16:55 UTC (Thu) by bos (guest, #6154) [Link] The guy in question (a) was obnoxious and (b) had said in advance that he wanted to clone BK, so of course they didn't sell him a license. People like that can be a major support burden, and often cost a lot more to deal with than one can make off licensing and support fees.
What occurs *after* someone buys a license is an entirely different thing, because there's then a well-defined legal agreement in place that puts specific obligations on both parties.
As to whether Larry would ignore it if he discovered that a paying customer was working on cloning BK, I'd expect that to depend on the circumstances (surprise, surprise). I do know that a number of companies have bought BK licenses, with Larry's foreknowledge and assent, explicitly so that their employees could continue to work on competing open source SCM tools.
Having it both ways? Posted Apr 7, 2005 17:47 UTC (Thu) by GreyWizard (guest, #1026) [Link] On the one hand, we have a clearly documented case where McVoy will refused to sell licenses to someone who declared, in advance, that he intended to work on a competing source control system (I'm not convinced that obnoxiousness and support costs were the reasons because McVoy himself emphasized the competitive issue exclusively in his first comment). On the other, you seem to claim that McVoy happily sold licenses to other companies who claimed, in advance, that some of their developers were currently working on competing source control systems -- all under license terms that place no restrictions on what those developers are able to do with BitKeeper.
Sorry, but this time I actually *do* think you're full of beans. Maybe you could name these companies and provide some sort of linkable evidence?
Having it both ways? Posted Apr 7, 2005 18:11 UTC (Thu) by bos (guest, #6154) [Link] Sure. Red Hat has some commercial BK licenses; this has been public knowledge for a while. My recollection is fuzzy, but I believe that David Miller refused to use BK without a commercial license because of the restrictions in the free license.
I also know that at least one much larger company has bought commercial BK licenses for somewhat similar reasons, but I'd rather not say who.
Are we discussing the same thing? Posted Apr 7, 2005 20:50 UTC (Thu) by GreyWizard (guest, #1026) [Link] Each of your examples is problematic. RedHat is not well known for their work on source control products. They do quite a lot of kernel development, and if they have a license it is probably intended to resolve cases like this one. That is hardly a reasonable example of competition. David Miller does not directly contribute to any project that competes with BitKeeper, so his purchase is irrelevant. Meanwhile, I'd rather not argue about this mysterious larger company you'd rather not name. Are we even discussing the same thing? My point is that is that Larry McVoy is zealous about preventing anyone who contributes to a project he considers competitive from using BitKeeper. This is supported by his own statements, such as: He does not say they don't get to use BK "unless they pay for it." Clearly he doesn't want them to use it at all. To the extent the paid license doesn't explicitly enforce this it's either an oversight or a lazy attempt at spin that would be immediately reversed if it ever became relevant. (I'm not sure exactly how this reversal would be implemented, but a simple license change would probably work because customers like you will eventually need updates, support or both. There may even be a clause allowing BitMover to alter the license unilaterally.) I find it unimaginable that McVoy would not take immediate action in response to competition from a customer.
Are we discussing the same thing? Posted Apr 7, 2005 21:05 UTC (Thu) by bos (guest, #6154) [Link] Sure, Red Hat isn't interested in SCM; they still use CVS to do most of their work, for example. The mysterious larger company actively works on SCM, but I doubt there's any overlap between their BK users and their SCM developers.
Certainly, Larry has been pretty vigorous about preventing naked competitors from using BK when he's had foreknowledge.
Are we discussing the same thing? Posted Apr 12, 2005 19:20 UTC (Tue) by zander76 (guest, #6889) [Link] Well, I don't know if I would say that RedHat is not a treat. RedHat is a commercial organization and if at anypoint they saw profit in SCM then they would be in there.
And your point is...? Posted Apr 12, 2005 19:35 UTC (Tue) by GreyWizard (guest, #1026) [Link] RedHat does not compete with BitMover today. That they could do so at some point in the future is irrelevant because the same can be said for any company that might consider purchasing BitKeeper. Refusing to sell on this basis would mean refusing to sell at all.
|
|||||||||||||