>>>>> "kmself" == kmself <kmself@ix.netcom.com> writes:
kmself> If you're looking at single-user work, my understanding is
kmself> that the licensing stuff doesn't really kick in. Though
kmself> single-user BitKeeper is a bit like having a one-seat
kmself> arena. It pretty much defeats the purpose. Still, the
kmself> idea is to make the restrictions important to
kmself> organizations, not single users.
Ok, I can see that now.
However, It seems that BitKeeper is aimed at very big organisations,
open-source programmers, and individual users, but nothing in-between.
For instance, if I wanted to create a repository for changes specific
to Debian (or perhaps just a private test package - eg. say I was
Brandon Robinson and packaging a complicated program like X 4.0), and
wanted a few others to have access to, I could do so, but then there
would be potentially confusing information logged on the
server. People might think I am maintaining the official version of X,
when I am not. They might get confused when they see logs about Debian
specific problems, which may not have anything to do with the upstream
authors.
Or, I maintain my configuration for each computer (and perhaps other
people) with cvs. Now, I couldn't care less if all my config changes
are logged to the open logger server, but if everybody did this...
I think the point I am trying to make, is that this information which
gets logged is only going to cause confusion, created in an unscalable
manner (ie. what happens if two projects happen to have the same
name?), and doesn't benefit anyone. IMHO the logged information is
useless without the source. The assumption that projects are either
open source, or large scaled commercial operations is not always
correct, and I think this is the major limitation with the license.
Spending $800 to $3,000 for a commercial license seems a bit of an
overkill for these "other" projects.
Which is a real pity, because it does look like a good management
system.
--
Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
