Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Mon, 15 Dec 2003 08:02:46 -0800 | From | Larry McVoy <> | Subject | Re: RFC - tarball/patch server in BitKeeper |
| |
On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 10:07:46PM -0800, Tupshin Harper wrote: > > Great, glad you understand that you are crossing the legal line. > > ??? what line am I crossing? Or do you mean that I would be if I were > to do something, and if so, what is that something? I informed you the > day that decided I was interested in exploring the internals of other > SCM products, and deleted the bk binaries from my machine at the same > time.
Tupshin, the BK license makes it clear that BK doesn't want to be reverse engineered, we've been over this and over this. Furthermore, reverse engineering for interoperability has a prerequisite that there is no other way to get at the data and we give you tons of ways to get at the data.
You keep wanting more and more information about how BitKeeper manages to do what it does and that certainly falls under reverse engineering. Getting at the raw information is just another way to figure out how BitKeeper manages that data, it's exactly the same as running a compiler and looking at the assembly language it produces. You are annoyed that we aren't giving you the data in the format you want with a roadmap that says here is how we did it.
I wish you'd just drop it, this isn't the place to have this discussion, every time we do anything to help the people who are actually doing kernel development you or someone like you feels obligated to whine about BK one more time because of your personal agenda which has nothing to do with kernel development. -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |