Re: New BK License Problem?

[Larry McVoy]

> Whether you like BK or not, it is the primary source management tool
> used by Linus and others, it is even documented in the source tree as
> such.
> 
> Therefore, such a license change could change that, so it's a relavant
> topic.

And in the "for what it is worth" department, when we contemplate changes
to the BKL, we've made a practice of discussing them here first.  We try
and keep it to a minimum, it's not exactly a popular topic, but we also
make sure that we don't surprise anyone who is paying attention.

I know that some of our license decisions have been, err, less than
warmly received, but we are operating in good faith, we want to help
the kernel folks, and that policy hasn't changed and won't change as
long as I own more than 50% of BitMover stock (still do, working
hard to keep it so).

IBM recently became worried that they were violating the license and
we are working out a waiver for them because it is obvious that their
work is valued by the kernel community.  It's a little weird because
I frequently argue against the SMP/NUMA stuff that IBM does, but that's
technical and BK licenses are business and I don't mix the two, that would
be both insane and unethical.  So rest assured, all you IBMers and anyone
else who cares, IBM and BitMover are figuring out a way that all the
IBM hackers can keep on using BK if that's what they want.  One hacker,
when told that they might not be able to use BK anymore, asked if she
could buy a copy with her own money.  I haven't been told who that was
but when I find out, she gets a BK t-shirt and our undieing support.
That's what we like to see :)