Re: RFC - tarball/patch server in BitKeeper

Tupshin Harper
2003-12-15T23:09:20Z

Larry McVoy wrote:

>Sigh. Tupshin, everyone hates these discussions and I'm in agreement with
>them. What you want to discuss isn't about kernel development, it's about
>building SCM systems. There are better places to do that than here.
>
>If you need clarification on whether you are violating our license, consult
>a lawyer.
>
>
I'm not asking for legal advice. I'm asking for bitkeeper's position on
fair usage of data. You made a claim that seems to have zero backing in
the bkl. I think asking for a justification of that claim is quite
reasonable. I know for a fact that I'm not violating your license,
because I'm not using your software and haven't agreed to your license.
The implication you made was that certain other people are violating
your license by exporting changesets publicly. If that is true, then
that is highly relevant to this list. kernel.org, for example would have
to remove changeset information such as
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/testing/cset/

-Tupshin