Re: New BK License Problem?

> Try and think about this from our point of view.  We provide a complex
> yet useful product for free.  While doing so accomplishes our goal of
> helping the kernel community, it also puts us at far greater risk that
> someone will just reimplement the software.  Creating this software 
> was quite difficult and we are not in the business of providing a 
> roadmap to our competitors, they get to find their own way.  

That's somewhat analogous to the situation with Trolltech's QT, before it was GPLed.

> If you want to suggest license changes do so showing that you understand
> why we did what we did and show how your changes accomplish that in
> a better way.  Suggestions like "you guys are idiots, just GPL it and
> you can make money from support" just get ignored.  Suggestions which
> increase, rather than decrease, our risk also get ignored.

You could do what Trolltech originally did, before they GPLed QT, and grant free licenses to developers who are developing free software - no matter who they work for.  I.E. If they work for BigFatCompany, Inc, but work on kernel patches in their lunch break, they get to have a free Bitkeeper license, whether they use it on the work computer or their own laptop.

John.