Re: New BK License Problem?

[Larry McVoy]

> And that's perfectly fair. However as worded in your license today, the 
> individuals who work for those companies and have nothing to do with 
> the competitive software you are worried about can't use your product 
> to work on open source software.

Yes, that's true.  But that doesn't mean we can't make exceptions, we can
and do.

> defined on www.opensource.org, may apply for a waiver to 
> <[e-mail]>
> stating
> 1) Which company they work for
> 2) Which Open Source Project(s) they are going to be using the 
> Bitkeeper software for
> 3) Identify if they are working on this project in their "free" time or 
> as part of their
> job definition
> 
> If granted the waiver will only cover the stated Open Source project(s) 
> you have named. If you expand your use of the BitKeeper software to 
> other Open Source project(s) you will need to apply for a waiver for 
> those project(s) as well.

If *I* had suggested this language I would have been flamed off the face
of the earth.  The people who are complaining the loudest are complaining
that BitKeeper limits their choices or takes their freedom away or whatever.
They absolutely *despise* any sort of authority figure and the idea of 
coming begging to BitMover for a waiver each time just makes them crazy.

That said, what you outlined is more or less our current practice anyway.
It's not clear to me that changing the license in any way other than 
GPLing it will shut up the whiners, so my preference is to leave it the
way it is and let you ask for a waiver.  The effect is the same both ways.