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

From: jmjonesat_private
Date: Tue Jun 19 2001 - 17:05:20 PDT

  • Next message: Greg KH: "Re: Bitkeeper (was: New LSM patch for consideration)"

    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.
    > 
    
    WE're developing a publicly accessable MPI, I'M developing a
    proprietary, commercial LSM/patch+device, as well as a GPL'd version
    designed as "community repayment." ... the needs (legally) are different.
    Technologically, the needs are similar.
    
    A daily "interim patch" automatically generated against the last stable 
    kernel would be very useful.  I suspect this will be under 100K, for
    a while.
    
    Simply tar'ing up the changed files would be similarly useful, with a
    simple script to include only the changed files.  I *will* re-consult my
    attorney, but I suspect the answer will be the same... BitKeeper rocks,
    but the licensing is "open software" specific, more so than GPL.  For
    commercial or other "payme" purposes, it's clearly a commercial
    product, and will cost me roughly $2000.  Even extended commercial or
    proprietary use appears to be prohibitted.  If it's not, no issue, but if
    I end up with "deep pockets", I'd rather not have a "silent partner".
    
    How are two or three (or even 5) cron'd commands to be executed at PDT 
    midnight a real problem?  Drop the files (automatically) to my webspace,
    I'll pay for the bandwidth to get them to the "world". 
    
    > 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.
    
    I will, with "peeks" from the posted delta.
    
    > 
    > -chris
    > 
    
    Thanks,
    J. Melvin Jones
    
    |>------------------------------------------------------
    ||  J. MELVIN JONES            jmjonesat_private 
    |>------------------------------------------------------
    ||  Microcomputer Systems Consultant  
    ||  Software Developer
    ||  Web Site Design, Hosting, and Administration
    ||  Network and Systems Administration
    |>------------------------------------------------------
    ||  http://www.jmjones.com/
    |>------------------------------------------------------
    
    
    
    
    
    _______________________________________________
    linux-security-module mailing list
    linux-security-moduleat_private
    http://mail.wirex.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-security-module
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jun 19 2001 - 17:06:42 PDT