LWN: Comments on "BitKeeper License"

BitKeeper License

dps — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 16:27:04 +0000

Several licenses and contracts state that you agree to any changes the other party, usually a
large company, might make at any time. You have no right to make any changes yourself. So if
they add you paying them $100000 per month then that might stick---although the most
outrageous changes might be ruled "unfair" or have no legal force for another reason.

Imagine the impact on futures or options if only one party could change the price at any time.

I would support legislation that states:
1. A contract or license agreement between two parties can not be changed by either party
without the explicit agreement of both parties.
2. No contract or license agreement can remove your consumer rights.
3. Consumer rights apply to companies if they are end-users.

I think 2 is true in many countries but 3 is not so common. I would also like to add penalties
guaranteed to be both expensive and bad publicity for   attempting to suggest that things that
are people's rights are not permitted.

BitKeeper License

chicks — Sun, 13 Oct 2002 13:13:59 +0000

Given how the license on the web that you actually acknowledge isn't the same one that appears in the bk software wouldn't it be fair that all versions received via the web only have the 1.37 license applied to them? This would mean that all of the people currently kicked off would be unkicked as long as they stuck with the version currently available. Only versions that come out after the shrink wrap license is the one actually getting acknowledged on the site would be (or should be) subject to the newer license.

BitKeeper License

leandro — Thu, 10 Oct 2002 15:15:56 +0000

> will stay with CVS until a better tool with a GPL or BSD style license will become available.

Aegis.