On Monday 14 February 2005 10:40, Larry McVoy wrote: > On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 10:08:20AM -0500, Jeff Sipek wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 01:08:58PM +0100, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: > > > On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 18:08:02 -0800, Larry McVoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > is to clarify the non-compete stuff. We've had some people who have > > > > indicated that they believed that if they used BK they were agreeing > > > > that they would never work on another SCM system. We can see how it > > > > is possible that people would interpret the license that way but that > > > > wasn't our intent. What we would like to do is change the language to > > > > say that if you use BK you are agreeing that you won't work on another > > > > SCM for 1 year after you stop using BK. But after that you would be > > > > > > I don't even plan working on some SCM system, but being > > > tainted for 1 year for just *using* BK is not worth the price IMHO. > > > > I agree, the price is just too high. No matter how much I like BK, I > > would give it up. > > The way some people are reading the license the price is even higher, > they think it is a forever tainted license as it stands today. I've had > specific requests to clarify this part of the license. > > So how would you suggest that we resolve it? The protection we need is > that people don't get to
How about just reversing it. If you work on another scm you cannot use _free_ bk for 1 year after you stop. Ed Tomlinson > - use BK > - stop using BK so they can go work on another system > - start using BK again > - stop using BK so they can go work on another system > ... > > We could say that if you stop using BK and work on another system then > you can't ever use it again. We're not going to do that, we've already > had to calm the fears of people who found themselves in that situation > for their job. > > So what do you want us to do? This isn't a change to take stuff from > you, it's a change that some of your peers asked us to do so they could > use BK (and it would be nice if the people who wanted this are reading > this thread and will speak up so it doesn't look like I'm making it up). > > What we've been doing so far is telling people who were worried to act as > if there were a year long gap and they have been happy with that answer > but they are asking for us to put it in the license so they don't have > to depend on some email based side agreement. > > It would be nice if you could talk this over amongst yourselves and > suggest an answer. I can see why you think it is a bad change, I'm hoping > that you can see why other people may want us to make this sort of change. > Maybe if you think about it a bit you'll come up with a better solution. > Or maybe we will. Either way, I can't be very involved in the process, > I'm taking off for a week long vacation starting Wednesday and I won't > have email access. Which will be a good way to make sure that if this > turns into a flame war I won't be prolonging it. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
