| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Linus codes up a patch managerLinus codes up a patch managerPosted Apr 8, 2005 17:54 UTC (Fri) by lutchann (subscriber, #8872)Parent article: Linus codes up a patch manager
Not that I've checked the exact text, but isn't Linus prevented from working on this project by the free BitKeeper license? I thought that was one of the more contentious clauses--preventing the licensee from working on SCM products during the license period and one year thereafter. Or is that why he's insisting that it's not an SCM, just a patch manager?
(Log in to post comments)
Linus codes up a patch manager Posted Apr 8, 2005 17:59 UTC (Fri) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] There is no free BitKeeper license anymore; since the license has been withdrawn, any non-compete obligations on Linus are gone as well.
Linus codes up a patch manager Posted Apr 8, 2005 18:27 UTC (Fri) by sbergman27 (subscriber, #10767) [Link] I don't think larry can do that. Once you grant someone a license to use something, can you just take it back? Of course, I suppose the old license could have an expiration date.
At any rate, Larry suing Linus makes about as much sense as SCO suing their own customers. Very bad publicity. Hmmmm. I guess I just compared Bitmover to SCO. Hope I didn't just invode some obscure corrolary to Godwin's Law or something. ;-)
Linus codes up a patch manager Posted Apr 8, 2005 18:34 UTC (Fri) by tomsi (subscriber, #2306) [Link] You are getting close.I had never heard about Goodwins law before, so for the other two readers who haven't heard about it - here is the Wikipedia entry
Linus codes up a patch manager Posted Apr 8, 2005 18:45 UTC (Fri) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] Doesn't mentioning Godwin's law count, itself, as an instance of its preconditions? I.e. maybe any thread in which Godwin's law has been mentioned is dead, too.
Linus codes up a patch manager Posted Apr 8, 2005 18:49 UTC (Fri) by sbergman27 (subscriber, #10767) [Link] Explicitly invoking it is considered bad form and causes the invoker to automatically lose the argument. That's why I said "I hope I didn't just invoke..." ;-)
Linus codes up a patch manager Posted Apr 11, 2005 7:54 UTC (Mon) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link] There is a free licence, and it has not been withdrawn, as far as I know.
The problem is, the free client has a 32K limit, and Linux is on the verge of smashing into this barrier.
So the client hasn't been withdrawn, it's just been declared obsolete and it is about to become useless as its limitations turn into fatal flaws...
Cheers,
Linus codes up a patch manager Posted Apr 11, 2005 15:31 UTC (Mon) by sammythesnake (guest, #17693) [Link] Larry has already announced that the last version of BK available under the "free" license will be the one that fixes the 32k limit (taking it to 64k, IIRC)
Cheers & God bless
Linus codes up a patch manager Posted Apr 11, 2005 16:05 UTC (Mon) by crlf (guest, #25122) [Link] It's a 64K limit that was being breached, but hasn't been breached yet. As it stands, there are 63429 changesets in Linus's BK tree.
Linus codes up a patch manager Posted Apr 9, 2005 1:11 UTC (Sat) by beoba (guest, #16942) [Link] It's a license, not a contract. If I'm correct*, such a clause would be largely irrelevant, as their only way of enforcement would be to prevent you from using their product.
*I very well might not be correct, so take this with an unhealthy dose of salt.
|
|
||||||||||||