Re: [BK] upgrade will be needed

[Larry McVoy]

On Monday 14 February 2005 09:14, Marcin Dalecki wrote:
> 1. Utterly immoral.
> 2. Something you are by no ways entitled to have.
>
> If you want to be compensated for BK then put a price tag on it.

Excellent idea.  At the volumes you are using it now that's $65M/year.
That's what we'd charge for the same number of seats at one commercial
site.  If it were spread out over the thousands of sites like your
usage is then it would be more, there's a lot more overhead.  There are
currently more than 2,200 top level domains using BK for free (where
top level means my-company.com, not my-workstation.my-company.com).

If someone wants to pay for it we'd be happy to negotiate a standard
click-wrap style license as part of the deal.  Everyone would like that
much better it seems.  Are you volunteering to pay?

On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 09:23:03AM -0800, Russell Miller wrote:
> It is certainly Larry's choice to license his software any way he chooses.
> 
> It is my choice whether or not to use it.

Yup, it is.  Always has been even for the kernel because of our hard
work to make sure of that.  We respect your choices, please respect ours.
-- 
---
Larry McVoy                lm at bitmover.com           http://www.bitkeeper.com
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/