Re: Bitkeeper (was: New LSM patch for consideration)

titusat_private

Chris and I also have a bit of difficulty in using BitKeeper, mostly
because our lab is behind some really stompy firewalls.  A tarball would
be nice, although we've been managing.

-Titus

On Tue, 19 Jun 2001, Chris Wright wrote:

> * jmjonesat_private (jmjonesat_private) wrote:
> >
> > All I can offer is that I talked to my attorneys and was advised against
> > accepting BitKeeper's license based on my intentions and expectations.
> > Attorneys think "differently" than technical people, which is why we
> > hire them.  They may be wrong, but not for me "in general".
> >
> > As a developer...  BitKeeper's license is not "standard".  If you work for
> > a big company, aim your legal department at it.  If they give the
> > "go-ahead", go for it.  The selection of BitKeeper has some issues...
> > which may or not be relevant to your specific needs.
>
> The BitKeeper license is very sepecifically written to allow exactly the
> type of development we are doing.  Basically, as long as you don't mind
> allowing openlogging where all metadata -- changeset file, changelog
> stuff, and some bitkeeper specific files -- is sent to an openlogging
> server then you are ok AFAIK.
>
> But none of us are experts, I'd suggest re-reading the BitKeeper license
> and/or querying BitMover.  If you are doing work that you don't want to
> allow openlogging (i.e. propritary work) then you need a commercial
> license (or another source control mechanism).
>
> > How hard/evil would it be to tarball up the whole development tree once
> > every 24 or 48 hours?
>
> That seems overkill.  We could simply provide the latest patch as well
> as the latest stable patch (although i'd really rather not!).  But before
> we consider this please verify that you simply cannot use BitKeeper.
>
> > If it could be supported, I'd provide a site to
> > make it accessable if THAT kernel would be provided, as an option,
> > I think it would solve my problem.  If not, I await an official release
> > of the LSM patch from the list/site against a stable linux kernel.
> >
> > And I will attempt to apply Mr. Smalley's modified patch against what
> > I have and work from there.
>
> The work Stephen has done will be in BitKeeper today or tomorrow, and a
> stable patch will be released at the same time.  So you can also just
> wait for that.
>
> -chris
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-security-module mailing list
> linux-security-moduleat_private
> http://mail.wirex.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-security-module
>

_______________________________________________
linux-security-module mailing list
linux-security-moduleat_private
http://mail.wirex.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-security-module