Weekly edition	Kernel	Security	Distributions	Contact Us	Search
Archives	Calendar	Subscribe	Write for LWN	LWN.net FAQ	Sponsors

The kernel and BitKeeper part ways

Posted Apr 10, 2005 2:40 UTC (Sun) by daniel (subscriber, #3181)
In reply to: The kernel and BitKeeper part ways by bronson
Parent article: The kernel and BitKeeper part ways

Because that's the only legal way to have a copy of the software. I suppose it's possible that you could sniff the wire while a properly licensed copy did transactions over it but that's starting to get real shaky...

How do you know that the engineer did not just connect to a BitKeeper repository and try to make it talk by pure trial and error?

(Log in to post comments)

Posted Apr 13, 2005 8:38 UTC (Wed) by njhurst (guest, #6022) [Link]

Particularly if that someone has a history of reverse engineering things from the outside (samba, tivo etc). I spent a little time working with tridge a long time ago and he's neither vindictive/zealotous nor is he naive when it comes to licences. I have no trouble believing him capable of doing what he did without touching the client, and I don't imagine him willingly using bitkeeper with the knowledge of the licence.

The kernel and BitKeeper part ways

Posted Apr 17, 2005 17:57 UTC (Sun) by alext (guest, #7589) [Link]

More recent reports show he (Tridge) didn't use BK in his reverse engineering and did not accept the license (no need as he wasn't installing or using BK) and the reports go on to point out that he is doing exactly what he did for Samba (for which he is celebrated like a hero).