Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 15 Dec 2003 13:44:52 -0800 | From | Larry McVoy <> | Subject | Re: RFC - tarball/patch server in BitKeeper |
| |
My apologies, I should have known better than trying to make you happy. It's time I learned that some people will never be happy no matter what you do. Fair enough.
Tupshin asked about clarification about using the BK metadata so he can go work on whatever SCM it is that he's working on this week. It should be clear from the license but in case it isn't, yes, it's a violation to use BK to transfer the information about how BK manages the data to some other SCM developer, directly or indirectly. You have every right to extract every patch you want, as patches. The second you start extracting BK metadata for the benefit of some SCM development effort, that's a violation of the BKL.
It's your data and that data includes your checkin comments but that is all. It's our tool and the use of our tool to export information how the data is managed is a violation of our license. I can't imagine this comes as any surprise, any vendor who has provided some innovation is going to protect that innovation. BTW - Tupshin knows this, I made it clear on the phone when he was asking me for a job, so why he's grinding this ax I don't know. -- --- 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/
| |