Re: [BK] upgrade will be needed

[Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>]

On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 14:13 +0100, Mws wrote:
> On Monday 14 February 2005 03:08, Larry McVoy wrote:

> > wasn't our intent.  What we would like to do is change the language to
> > say that if you use BK you are agreeing that you won't work on another
> > SCM for 1 year after you stop using BK.  But after that you would be
> > able to hack on anything that you wanted.  That was more of what we
> > had in mind in the first place but we didn't make it clear.  If you all
> > thought that using BK meant you had no right to hack on SCM ever again,
> > that's just not fair.  We need to protect our IP but you should have
> > the right to choose to go hack SCM if that's what you (our first choice
> > is that you came and worked here, we really like kernel hackers, but if
> > you don't want to that's cool too).
> Hi, 
> 
> do you mean "if you use BK you are agreeing that you won't work on another
> SCM for 1 year after you stop using BK." for the kernel tree and developers or in general?

IANAL, but I've talked to lawyers about clauses like this with
employment. Most of these clauses are too restrictive and are not
enforcible. But I've never heard of a non-compete clause to USE a
product. Only if you work on something.  I'll have to have another talk
with my lawyer, but I am pretty sure that you can't prevent someone from
employment just because they used a product.  I can understand if you
were employed by bitmover, or signed an NDA to look at the code. But
just the act of using it is ridicules.  Can you see Ford Motors telling
someone that you can't go work for GM if you drive a Ford?

FYI,
 What my lawyer told me about non-compete clauses (in the work place),
was that if they prevent you from getting employment in your skill set,
and your only other choice is basically to flip burgers, then they are
not enforcible (this is in respect to the USA, void where prohibited).

-- Steve