From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+willy=40w.ods.org@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S264300AbTLOXMi (ORCPT <rfc822;willy@w.ods.org>);
	Mon, 15 Dec 2003 18:12:38 -0500
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264301AbTLOXMi
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Mon, 15 Dec 2003 18:12:38 -0500
Received: from ppp-217-133-42-200.cust-adsl.tiscali.it ([217.133.42.200]:20398
	"EHLO dualathlon.random") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S264300AbTLOXMc (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 15 Dec 2003 18:12:32 -0500
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 00:13:21 +0100
From: Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de>
To: Tupshin Harper <tupshin@tupshin.com>
Cc: Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: RFC - tarball/patch server in BitKeeper
Message-ID: <20031215231321.GN6730@dualathlon.random>
References: <20031215151126.3fe6e97a.vsu@altlinux.ru> <20031215132720.GX7308@phunnypharm.org> <20031215192402.528ce066.vsu@altlinux.ru> <20031215183138.GJ6730@dualathlon.random> <20031215185839.GA8130@work.bitmover.com> <20031215194057.GL6730@dualathlon.random> <20031215214452.GB8130@work.bitmover.com> <20031215220257.GM6730@dualathlon.random> <20031215221410.GC8130@work.bitmover.com> <3FDE3956.1070308@tupshin.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3FDE3956.1070308@tupshin.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
X-GPG-Key: 1024D/68B9CB43 13D9 8355 295F 4823 7C49  C012 DFA1 686E 68B9 CB43
X-PGP-Key: 1024R/CB4660B9 CC A0 71 81 F4 A0 63 AC  C0 4B 81 1D 8C 15 C8 E5
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 02:44:38PM -0800, Tupshin Harper wrote:
> NO!!! In this case, you are not using bk, you are accessing information 
> that is placed in a public place. If your argument were to hold any 

that is what I meant with the "web" of course (not the web in the sense
of the world wide web at large), with the "web" I meant the bkbits.net
website of course.

> water, then people constrained from using bk due to any clause of the 
> bkl could not access any information on bkbits.net. The mere act of 
> pointing their browser there would be a violation. Since these people 

correct.

> Either browsing bkbits.net is a use of bk and non-licensed people can't 
> use it, or it is is not a use of bk and none of the bkl restrictions 
> apply. Can't have it both ways.

agreed.