[lkml]   [2002]   [Oct]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: New BK License Problem?
I don't see how your wording changes anything in regards to whether the 
effect is to restrain trade.


FD Cami wrote:

> Hash: SHA1
> Hans Reiser wrote:
> | Oh my, does this mean that if I use BitKeeper software, I am a
> | participant in a conspiracy to restrain trade?
> |
> | Consider: I make reiser4 available by bitkeeper. Competitor of larry
> | wants to use reiser4 but can't access it because access requires
> | bitkeeper. Larry has given me an incentive to participate in
> | discriminating against his competitors (free license for
> bitkeeper). Am
> | I legally liable and subject to criminal charges if a Clinton judge
> gets
> | the case?
> |
> | Hans
> Good point... Although I think it would be unfair, for example, to
> be able to use BitKeeper to develop a _commercial_ product that
> would compete with BitKeeper.
> So, _maybe_ the license should be :
> "
> 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 closed source (GPL, like CVS) product which
> contains substantially similar capabilities of the BitKeeper Software,
> or, in the reasonable opinion of BitMover, competes with the BitKeeper
> Software.
> "
> But of course, who am I to decide... Larry ? ;-)
> FD Cami

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:29    [W:0.087 / U:4.584 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site