Re: Bitkeeper

From: Adrian Bunk (
Date: Sat Jul 19 2003 - 15:42:19 EST

On Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 03:27:02PM -0700, Larry McVoy wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 02:08:32PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
> > My understanding of the relevant case law in the United States is that
> > these types of restrictions are not allowed under copyright law itself.
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 10:23:30PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > Actually your license is simply irrelevant in most of thre world. You
> > aren't allowed to forbid reverse engineering for interoperability.
> "Judge, I want to violate this license on this product that I got
> for free because it's not free enough".
> "Judge, we give it out for free and we also developed technology
> to transfer the data out of our product and into a GPLed product,
> we do that at our expense and even host the competing GPLed repos
> for free and they still want to violate the license"
> Who do you think is going to win that one?

"Judge, our current German copyright law explicitely states that such a
 clause is void."

> Larry McVoy lm at



"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

- 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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jul 23 2003 - 22:00:38 EST