| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
How Tridge reverse engineered BitKeeperHow Tridge reverse engineered BitKeeperPosted Apr 21, 2005 20:31 UTC (Thu) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458)In reply to: How Tridge reverse engineered BitKeeper by njhurst Parent article: How Tridge reverse engineered BitKeeper
This report just doesn't match the claims that Linus tried to disuade Tridge from working on bk. If this is truly all Tridge did, there simply was no time to try to convince anybody in between. In any case, Larry McVoy specifically asked for no reverse engineering. If he was right or wrong, if it was or not legal to ask for it, etc. just doesn't matter to me. If somebody wants her wishes (as set forth via GPL, BSD, or whatever) to be followed, she should do the courtesy to reciprocate.
(Log in to post comments)
How Tridge reverse engineered BitKeeper Posted Apr 21, 2005 22:28 UTC (Thu) by dvdeug (subscriber, #10998) [Link] There's reasons why BSD and GPL are legal licenses, and not wishes. I want to be independently wealthy; Larry wanted no one to look at his program. I don't see why people should jump to fulfill either wish.
How Tridge reverse engineered BitKeeper Posted Apr 28, 2005 6:29 UTC (Thu) by bignose (subscriber, #40) [Link] > Larry McVoy specifically asked for no reverse engineering.
As do Microsoft.
> If somebody wants her wishes (as set forth via GPL, BSD, or whatever) to be followed, she should do the courtesy to reciprocate.
In both cases (the SMB protocols, the Bitkeeper protocol), Tridge did not use programs from the vendor (Microsoft, Bitmover) to connect to their services. He used programs under terms that he presumably *does* agree with.
Users of Samba should and must follow the wishes of Tridge (and its other authors), as set forth in the GPL. That has no hold, moral or legal, on anyone who simply connects their own client program to a Samba service.
|
|
||||||||||||