%% Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: bm> I think the point I am trying to make, is that this information bm> which gets logged is only going to cause confusion, created in an bm> unscalable manner (ie. what happens if two projects happen to have bm> the same name?), and doesn't benefit anyone. IMHO the logged bm> information is useless without the source. The assumption that bm> projects are either open source, or large scaled commercial bm> operations is not always correct, and I think this is the major bm> limitation with the license.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point, but... The logged information isn't meant to be useful, per se, without the source. The entire and only purpose of the logging is as an incentive to get people to pay for the commercial version. The idea is that people developing proprietary code won't want even the logging info public, and they'll pay for licenses in order to keep that private. The people working on free software, or managing their home configurations, etc., couldn't care less about the logging, so they don't pay anything. It's just a way of associating the proprietary developer's desire for privacy (or, as RMS would say, "information hoarding" :) with licensing fees. As for name collisions, I think that's BitKeeper's problem, not yours; I don't know if/how they address that. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Paul D. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> HASMAT--HA Software Methods & Tools "Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These are my opinions---Nortel Networks takes no responsibility for them.
