Messages in this thread | | | From | Aggelos Economopoulos <> | Subject | Re: openbkweb-0.0 | Date | Sat, 15 Feb 2003 07:00:36 +0200 |
| |
On Saturday 15 February 2003 05:11, Jamie Lokier wrote: [...] > [ Note that I won't agree to refrain from reverse engineering the > network protocol, as the price of using BK for free. > > Chances are I'll never bother, but it's not something I'd willingly > agree to not do, because I prefer to be not allowed to use BK than to > be effectively bound by an eternal NDA. ]
What makes you think the licence is something like an _eternal_ NDA?
Larry, I've used bitkeeper for a few months to pull linus's and rik's trees and export them for my own use until about a month ago. I've also tried using it in a single user repository for contest (the benchmark).
Last week, feeling tempted to dig into arch, I removed all the files from the bitkeeper installation and I did a search-and-unlink of BitKeeper directories, just in case.
Do you intend to sue me if I ever submit a patch for cvs/subversion/whatever (arch kind of sucks:-) or if I feel like starting my own scm project? (while I think this would be ridiculous I'm not trying to bash you here, it's an honest question regarding Jamie's comment above)
Aggelos
- 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/
| |