Re: RFC - tarball/patch server in BitKeeper

[Tupshin Harper <tupshin@tupshin.com>]

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