Sponsored link
Vyatta –
Linux & Open Source
Alternative to Cisco –
Advanced Routing,
Firewall, VPN, QoS..
Free Download ->
| |||||||||||
Having it both ways?Having it both ways?Posted Apr 7, 2005 17:47 UTC (Thu) by GreyWizard (subscriber, #1026)In reply to: Actually, no by bos Parent article: Linus on the BK withdrawal
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?
(Log in to post comments)
Having it both ways? Posted Apr 7, 2005 18:11 UTC (Thu) by bos (subscriber, #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 (subscriber, #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 (subscriber, #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 (subscriber, #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 (subscriber, #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.
|
|||||||||||