[lkml]   [2003]   [Mar]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Never ever send Pavel private mail unless you want him to publish it.
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 08:33:39AM -0600, wrote:
> It's called a trademark, or a service mark. He does have the right to
> defend the name, but YOU had no right to post private mail to a public list.
> Thanks for proving what an utter coward and unscrupulous ass you are. I
> suspected before, now I know.

A statement from any person who holds an official capacity regarding a
product that they sell, may not fall under the terms of "private
correspondence." If the CEO of IBM sent you an email that instructed you
not to pursue a public goal or else, I suspect you would send a copy of
the email to the local newspapers (especially if it violated your ideals
regarding what is 'fair play').

I don't envy Larry's position, however, people need to stand behind
the things that they say, and a President of a company, only more so.

'nondisclosure agreements' exist for a reason. Also, the last time I
tried to defend maintaining the privacy of an email, I lost. There are
simply no rules about any of it. The closest would be copyright law,
and even then, as long as the email is attributed, it is a hard stance
to make. You would have to prove that the release of the email caused
you to lose a fixed amount of money. You would have to prove that the
there was a reasonable expectation of privacy. I don't see either in
this case. I see many emotions running high, and people standing on the
side of the fence of the people they like most.

In reality, there is no fence. Non-BitKeeper supporters can write a clone,
and use the same interface. As long as the algorithms are not patented,
non-BitKeeper supporters can even use the same algorithms. Non-BitKeeper
supports can call the clone whatever they want, as long as they think
the BitKeeper supporters would lose against them in a trademark battle.
This is not a question of how close you or I think the name might be. It
is a question of how close or far a lawyer can make a judge feel that the
name is. The name can always be changed when, or if, the legal battle
actually arose. Until that point, Non-BitKeeper supporters can call their
clone whatever they want.

Legal battles on either side would hurt both sides.

I suggest the Non-BitKeeper supporters choose a unique name to save
everybody the hassle. I cannot see any legal argument why this new
product could not be labelled "BitKeeper compatible". After all, Open
Office and other such products claim to be compatible to various
degrees with Microsoft Office, and Microsoft doesn't have a cow about

I don't know what I would do if I was Larry. It is hard paying people to
create and enhance a quality product, and then have a bunch of volunteers
from the community come along with claims that they will obsolete you.

Whether Larry is in a tight position or not, this is all business as usual.

Cheers, and BE FRIENDLY... :-)

-- __________________________
. . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ |
| | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them...

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 13:33    [W:0.133 / U:1.708 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site