If anyone bothers on read the whole thread (ha!), they'll find that this only affects the free use of BK.
Larry's main concern is that someone who wants to implement a competing version control system does not use a free version of BK to do so. He is not attempting to prevent the subversion people from using bitkeeper; he just doesn't want them using it for free.
Before people start jumping up and down and screaming "antitrust", let me just state again that he is simply insisting that people who work on competing products but BK, rather than using it for free. He is by no means restricting anyone's trade.
Furthermore, BK is not required to checkout source code from a BK repository -- SCCS suffices, and Rik van Riel, Jeff Garzik and others make snapshots available every couple of hours.
The long and short is that nobody need use bitkeeper for kernel development (the source code may be obtained in a timely fashion using existing tools). If you don't like the BK license, don't use BK!
Larry has a responsibility to BitMover and its employees. He has salaries to pay, and making it easier for competitors to duplicate BK does not make that any easier. By providing BK and bkbits.net for free, he is doing the kernel community a service -- how about we cut him some slack?
Re:Is it that hard to supply a BIOS setup manual?
on
Secrets Of BIOS Tweaking
·
· Score: 2, Informative
So mr. Phoenix, Award, AMI,
Note that Phoenix gobbled up Award about five years ago. They're now different product lines of the same company.
Slashdot Mirror
The real question is why the hell (unless on the way to Tahoe) would anyone want to go to Placerville???
Hate to upset you there, but unless your BIOS comes from AMI, then you almost certainly have a Phoenix BIOS.
Hint: Phoenix/Award are the same company.
If anyone bothers on read the whole thread (ha!), they'll find that this only affects the free use of BK.
Larry's main concern is that someone who wants to implement a competing version control system does not use a free version of BK to do so. He is not attempting to prevent the subversion people from using bitkeeper; he just doesn't want them using it for free.
Before people start jumping up and down and screaming "antitrust", let me just state again that he is simply insisting that people who work on competing products but BK, rather than using it for free. He is by no means restricting anyone's trade.
Furthermore, BK is not required to checkout source code from a BK repository -- SCCS suffices, and Rik van Riel, Jeff Garzik and others make snapshots available every couple of hours.
The long and short is that nobody need use bitkeeper for kernel development (the source code may be obtained in a timely fashion using existing tools). If you don't like the BK license, don't use BK!
Larry has a responsibility to BitMover and its employees. He has salaries to pay, and making it easier for competitors to duplicate BK does not make that any easier. By providing BK and bkbits.net for free, he is doing the kernel community a service -- how about we cut him some slack?
Note that Phoenix gobbled up Award about five years ago. They're now different product lines of the same company.