Re: Bitkeeper

David Lang
2003-07-18T21:37:11Z

actually I think that your case for ignoring the 'no reverse engineering'
would be far better if you paid for a bitkeeper license, but when you are
being allowed to use it for free on the condition that you use it specific
ways (no reverse engineering and public access to changeset info) saying
that you will eliminate complying with those terms but still get to use it
for free isn't being very reasonable.

David Lang

On 18 Jul 2003, Alan Cox wrote:

> Date: 18 Jul 2003 22:23:30 +0100
> From: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
> To: Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com>
> Cc: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>,
> Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
> Subject: Re: Bitkeeper
>
> On Gwe, 2003-07-18 at 21:44, Larry McVoy wrote:
> > I'm trying hard to stay out of this, I think Richard may be trolling,
> > but I need to make sure that people understand that what Richard is
> > suggesting is violation of our license and copyright.
>
> Actually your license is simply irrelevant in most of thre world. You
> aren't allowed to forbid reverse engineering for interoperability.
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>