3 ms·

> The fundamental issue I saw was that McVoy decided to foist what I consider an unconscionable license agreement upon his unpaid open source users: users were

> The fundamental issue I saw was that McVoy decided to foist what I consider an unconscionable license agreement upon his unpaid open source users: users were prohibited from working on another version control system without having their license to use the read-only BitKeeper client revoked. (And reverse engineering BK's protocol was also forbidden.) From the starting line I already thought he was slimy for that. I'm letting you use my commercial product under the understanding that you won't try to undermine it... I think that's actually pretty reasonable. I'm giving you something for nothing in return, and all I ask is not to try to take more from me? I always though that Tridge was ungrateful in the situation.

kelnos 6y ago
I get that you might have no problem with that, but personally I find that kind of arrangement unethical, and I would never agree to that sort of license. Also note that I believe the "free for open source users" version of the BK client was a read-only client that only allowed pulling code. So it's not like McVoy was giving his whole product away for free, out of the generosity of his heart. > ...and all I ask is not to try to take more from me? Reverse engineering is a neutral activity. There's no "taking" going on. > I always though that Tridge was ungrateful in the situation. Ungrateful that he was forced to use a crippled, proprietary tool to interface with the development process of a project he's involved in? A tool that expressly disallows him from doing anything to make that situation better? That's rubbish.