Well, I'll tell you what. If the converse is true, that if it is
completely free, you will love me so much that you pay my mortgage and
support my family, then it's free.
: 2. Someone paid to hack Linux counts as "doing free software".
: That means SCSI drivers, the Merced port, etc.
Linux is free software so you'd be covered.
: 3. You allow distribution of bug-fix patches against BitKeeper itself.
: You could prohibit features, but bug fixes are critical.
How about: redistribution for a substantial fee is prohibited (substantial
meaning that it's fine to put it on a CD Linux distribution but not
fine to just put BitKeeper on there and charege $500 for it). Modified
redistribution is prohibited /unless/ you clearly state that this is not
the official BitKeeper product. As a company, it is important to build
trust in your customers. What do I do if someone sends out a patched
version that contains a bug that corrupts their source?
The short summary is that you can patch it all you want but you can't
then call it BitKeeper. You can call it PatchedBitkeeper or some other
clearly related but clearly different name, and I'm fine with that.
In general, just like Linus doesn't like people distributing wacked
kernels he hasn't blessed, I'm the same way about patched source.
The right answer is you ship bug fixes back to me, I integrate them,
and release a new version. Which is exactly what has been happening
and will continue to happen.
: 4. You own at least 51% of the company. To buy out competition,
: Microsoft has a slush fund of a few hundred million $.
It's a private company, I own 100% of it. It's likely to stay that
way for exactly the reasons that you want. I would be willing to make
a poison pill in the company that says if my ownership ever goes lower
than 51%, the sources as of that moment become GPLed (that says nothing
about the sources going forward, BitMover could do whatever they want
with that), but at least you'd be assured that there would be something
out there.
: Preferably you'd also allow paid development of public LGPL source.
: (you can consider X, BSD, and MPL licenses as commercial)
I don't have a problem with paid development for free software.
If someone wants to work in that space, then I'll also work in that
space and give it away to them and pray they'll pay me support costs.
: > The fanaticism that surrounds free software is a problem, in my opinion.
: > It is the next big problem that faces the community. It forces people to
: > choose between completely free or completely non-free. As with almost
: > everything, the end point is not the right place to be, the midpoint
: > is a better answer.
:
: Outside of the core system, yes. We've been biten before though.
I'm very sympathetic. I've been bitten at least as badly. I poured 7
years into helpingmake SunOS 4.x a great operating system only to have
it ripped away and replaced with that Solaris thing.
-----------------
Anyway, if anyone is interested in discussing the licensing further,
perhaps you'd be interested in joing the bpl@bitmover.com alias (bpl ==
business public license) which is where I plan to hash out the details
on how this will work. I'd welcome anyone with constructive thoughts
to join in (all the lurkers are welcome too).
Thanks,
--lm
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/