[lkml]   [2002]   [Oct]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: New BK License Problem?

On Friday, October 4, 2002, at 04:08 PM, Larry McVoy wrote:

>> (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.
>> Doesn't this affect maintainers all across the map that work for
>> distros such as RedHat, SuSE, Connectiva, etc? Obviously these
>> distros
>> SELL as part of their respective products CVS and similar tools. Or
>> even non-distro open source shops, you even resell CVS or the like in
>> some way and you'd be in trouble.
> Distributions do not *SELL* CVS, they distribute CVS.

Of course they sell CVS. I give them money, they give me a CD, that CD
has CVS on it.

If I have a support contract with that distro and CVS breaks they will
fix it.

I don't doubt if I went to the various distros with money in hand for
extra features for CVS they would put them in.

> We choose those
> words with care for exactly that reason. All the clause is saying is
> that if you are a competitor you don't get to use our product for free.
> That it, in our opinion, a perfectly reasonable position to take.

Yeah I understand what your intent is and I'm not flaming you. I have a
problem with the wording in that claus. Unfortunately you're not a
lawyer so your stated intent means little, it's the language in the
license that has meaning.



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:0.200 / U:1.568 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site