LWN: Comments on "Getting at the BitKeeper repositories without BitKeeper"

Some are forbidden (the FREE version)

jschrod — Thu, 13 Feb 2003 22:42:09 +0000

You misstate the problem.

Like you stated: If a company wants to work on a competitor, they are forbidden to use the free version to go at it. That's fine and reasonable.

What you omitted: If an employee of that company wants to work on the kernel, he is also forbidden to use BitKeeper. His or her contributions to the kernel might have nothing to do with configuration management; he still is not allowed to use it. And that is not reasonable.

It's stretching restrictions concerning configuration management work to something unrelated like kernel-work -- and do that retrospectively -- that got many people upset. Just like the license change of Microsoft when they released an update to their new Media Player.

Some are forbidden (the FREE version)

pflugstad — Thu, 13 Feb 2003 16:18:45 +0000

AFAIK, this applies to the FREE BK license only. IMO, it's perfectly
reasonable for LM & Company to restrict the FREE version from people
who are trying to compete with them. If someone wants to develop a
competing product, nothing prevents them from BUYING a copy of BK and
going at it. But BitMover is not going to provide a copy for free in
that situation.

Some are forbidden

ncm — Thu, 13 Feb 2003 06:03:20 +0000

Not all the kernel developers who don't run Bitkeeper are avoiding it for ideological or other voluntary reasons. Some are forbidden to run it, by the Bitkeeper license. This license was changed retroactively, after Linus was persuaded to commit to using the software.

Any kernel developer who (or whose employer!) contributes to development or maintenance of CVS, subversion, arch, or other "competitor" to Bitkeeper is among the forbidden.