On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 10:07:46PM -0800, Tupshin Harper wrote:But not all data. That's the point. The bk2cvs process is lossy...you can't gloss over that point.
Tupshin, the BK license makes it clear that BK doesn't want to be reverseGreat, glad you understand that you are crossing the legal line.??? what line am I crossing? Or do you mean that I would be if I were
to do something, and if so, what is that something? I informed you the
day that decided I was interested in exploring the internals of other
SCM products, and deleted the bk binaries from my machine at the same
time.
engineered, we've been over this and over this. Furthermore, reverse
engineering for interoperability has a prerequisite that there is no other
way to get at the data and we give you tons of ways to get at the data.
You keep wanting more and more information about how BitKeeper managesNo...I keep wanting free (speech) access to all (current and historical information) that is part of the kernel. You ignored the question of who owns the changesets. Or maybe, more appropriately, what license do the changesets have?
to do what it does and that certainly falls under reverse engineering.
Getting at the raw information is just another way to figure out howIs there some implication here that is a license violation for a bk (free license) user to make available full changesets for non-bk users to user for *any* purpose?
BitKeeper manages that data, it's exactly the same as running a compiler
and looking at the assembly language it produces.