Re: RFC - tarball/patch server in BitKeeper

Tupshin Harper
2003-12-15T22:36:45Z

Larry McVoy wrote:

>The second you start
>extracting BK metadata for the benefit of some SCM development effort,
>that's a violation of the BKL.
>
>
Right here, you conflate action and intent. I asked about whether
somebody could legally make the changesets of a bitkeeper archive
publicly available. Will you be issuing a cease and desist order to Rik
van Riel for making changesets available at
ftp://nl.linux.org/pub/linux/bk2patch/patches-v2.5/ ??? I have found
this information to be very interesting. I haven't gone off and
developed an nth generation SCM product, but I have gathered a lot of
interesting quantifiable information about kernel development patterns,
statistics, etc. Who's violating what license, exactly?

>It's your data and that data includes your checkin comments but that is
>all. It's our tool and the use of our tool to export information how the
>data is managed is a violation of our license.
>
Can you point out the relevant portion of the BKL? According to the BKL,
changesets fall into the category of "Metadata". The only restrictions
placed on metadata is that they be transmitted to an open logging
server. The only conceivable restriction I can find is the global
non-compete clause contained in 3-d: "Notwithstanding any other terms in
this License, this License is not available to You if You and/or your
employer develop, produce, sell, and/or resell a product which contains
substantially similar capabil- ities of the BitKeeper Software, or, in
the reason- able opinion of BitMover, competes with the BitKeeper
Software."
Does somebody like Rik magically fall under this clause because he makes
changesets publicly available?

-Tupshin