From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264264AbTLOXJU (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Dec 2003 18:09:20 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264270AbTLOXJT (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Dec 2003 18:09:19 -0500 Received: from adsl-67-114-19-185.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net ([67.114.19.185]:23429 "EHLO bastard") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264264AbTLOXIW (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Dec 2003 18:08:22 -0500 Message-ID: <3FDE3EE0.6060101@tupshin.com> Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 15:08:16 -0800 From: Tupshin Harper User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031205 Thunderbird/0.4 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Larry McVoy Cc: Andrea Arcangeli , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: RFC - tarball/patch server in BitKeeper References: <20031214172156.GA16554@work.bitmover.com> <2259130000.1071469863@[10.10.2.4]> <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> <3FDE376D.4060309@tupshin.com> <20031215224626.GD8130@work.bitmover.com> In-Reply-To: <20031215224626.GD8130@work.bitmover.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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