Re: BK is evil corporate software [was Re: New BK License Problem?]

From: Rik van Riel (riel@conectiva.com.br)
Date: Mon Oct 07 2002 - 15:30:03 EST

Next message: george anzinger: "Re: [RFC][PATCH] HZ as a config option"
Previous message: Linus Torvalds: "Re: The reason to call it 3.0 is the desktop (was Re: [OT] 2.6 not 3.0 - (NUMA))"
In reply to: Pavel Machek: "BK is *evil* corporate software [was Re: New BK License Problem?]"
Next in thread: Rik van Riel: "Re: New BK License Problem?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Mon, 7 Oct 2002, Pavel Machek wrote:

> Stop lying.

Look who's talking. *plonk*

> (as it stands you want $5000 for any bk-using
> developer inside RedHat and SuSE).

Rik

-- Bravely reimplemented by the knights who say "NIH". http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/ Current spamtrap: <a href=mailto:"october@surriel.com">october@surriel.com</a>

- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: george anzinger: "Re: [RFC][PATCH] HZ as a config option"
Previous message: Linus Torvalds: "Re: The reason to call it 3.0 is the desktop (was Re: [OT] 2.6 not 3.0 - (NUMA))"
In reply to: Pavel Machek: "BK is *evil* corporate software [was Re: New BK License Problem?]"
Next in thread: Rik van Riel: "Re: New BK License Problem?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 07 2002 - 22:01:00 EST