[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] BK sync ?
From: |
Alexander Deruwe |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] BK sync ? |
Date: |
Wed, 17 Sep 2003 15:37:08 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.4i |
On Wed, Sep 17, 2003 at 03:29:14PM +0200, Karel Gardas wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Sep 2003, Alexander Deruwe wrote:
> > This is the relevant clause:
> >
> > (d) Notwithstanding any other terms in this License, this
> > License is not available to You if You and/or your
> > employer develop, produce, sell, and/or resell a
> > product which contains substantially similar capabil-
> > ities of the BitKeeper Software, or, in the reason-
> > able opinion of BitMover, competes with the BitKeeper
> > Software.
>
> I'm afraid that by "develop" there is also mean developing any addition to
> tla. So IMHO any development of direct (vide below) bk2arch is prohibited.
Hrm, yeah, and bk2arch would almost certainly be classed as 'competing
product'.
> AFAIK bk2svn uses bk2cvs which is product of BitMover. So writting
> indirect bk2arch which will use bk2cvs is IMHO possible, but writting
> direct bk2arch is IMHO very risky.
Maybe running cscvs on the bk2cvs repository would yield some nice
results; I don't know.
Alexander
- [Gnu-arch-users] BK sync ?, Paul Hedderly, 2003/09/17
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] BK sync ?, Samium Gromoff, 2003/09/17
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: BK sync ?, Stig Brautaset, 2003/09/17
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: BK sync ?, Samium Gromoff, 2003/09/17
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: BK sync ?, Alexander Deruwe, 2003/09/17
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: BK sync ?, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2003/09/17
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: BK sync ?, Tom Lord, 2003/09/18
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: BK sync ?, Karel Gardas, 2003/09/17