Hi!
Never ever use word KitBeeper, Larry thinks he owns the world.
The page originally said "Goal of this project is to create version
managment system compatible with <prohibited word>".
Pavel
PS: I know forwarding personal message to the mailing list is not
polite, but this is more of legal threat than personal message...
PPS: About Toyota: I may not be able to call my company Toyota (if you
have registered trademark in czech republic, which I doubt), but I'm
sure able to say that my car contains same engine as Toyota
1234cdt. And as you named directory in the repository BitKeeper,
there's no chance not to mention it.
----- Forwarded message from Larry McVoy <[email protected]> -----
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 20:21:54 -0800
From: Larry McVoy <[email protected]>
To: Pavel Machek <[email protected]>
Cc: Larry McVoy <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: BitBucket: GPL-ed BitKeeper clone
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i
> Sorry, but I'm doing this on my own, this has nothing to do with SuSE.
That's fine, I've taken it up with the sourceforge people. What you
are doing is a violation of their terms of use and they'll get you
to fix it, I don't care who fixes it, I want absolutely no reference
to anything which can connect that work with BitKeeper. That's well
with in our legal rights.
As for it being on your own time, let's see if SuSE wants the negative
publicity. I'm quite willing to make a stink, you've annoyed me and
I've put up with as much as I'm going to.
> I believe the wording above is okay; if you miss "BitKeeper is
> trademark of BitMover" notice, I guess you can have that too. If you
> want your lawyer to call me, my cellphone is +XXXXXXXXXXXX; if you
> want to suggest alternate wording, just do that. But I believe saying
> "compatible with (something)" is okay, and I can allways just misspell
> it.
No, you can't. Check into the case law. If there is any way to connect
it to our product, it is within our rights to protect our brand. You
can't call your new car company Toyotaa either, Toyota can sue and will
if they think it infringes on their brand.
You are quite welcome to write your own SCM. You may not take advantage
of our work, check into the law.
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
----- End forwarded message -----
--
Horseback riding is like software...
...vgf orggre jura vgf serr.
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 11:51:32AM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Never ever use word KitBeeper, Larry thinks he owns the world.
>
> The page originally said "Goal of this project is to create version
> managment system compatible with <prohibited word>".
>
> Pavel
>
> PS: I know forwarding personal message to the mailing list is not
> polite, but this is more of legal threat than personal message...
>
> PPS: About Toyota: I may not be able to call my company Toyota (if you
> have registered trademark in czech republic, which I doubt), but I'm
> sure able to say that my car contains same engine as Toyota
> 1234cdt. And as you named directory in the repository BitKeeper,
> there's no chance not to mention it.
>
> ----- Forwarded message from Larry McVoy <[email protected]> -----
>
> Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 20:21:54 -0800
> From: Larry McVoy <[email protected]>
> To: Pavel Machek <[email protected]>
> Cc: Larry McVoy <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: BitBucket: GPL-ed BitKeeper clone
> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i
>
> > Sorry, but I'm doing this on my own, this has nothing to do with SuSE.
>
> That's fine, I've taken it up with the sourceforge people. What you
> are doing is a violation of their terms of use and they'll get you
> to fix it, I don't care who fixes it, I want absolutely no reference
> to anything which can connect that work with BitKeeper. That's well
> with in our legal rights.
>
> As for it being on your own time, let's see if SuSE wants the negative
> publicity. I'm quite willing to make a stink, you've annoyed me and
> I've put up with as much as I'm going to.
>
> > I believe the wording above is okay; if you miss "BitKeeper is
> > trademark of BitMover" notice, I guess you can have that too. If you
> > want your lawyer to call me, my cellphone is +XXXXXXXXXXXX; if you
> > want to suggest alternate wording, just do that. But I believe saying
> > "compatible with (something)" is okay, and I can allways just misspell
> > it.
>
> No, you can't. Check into the case law. If there is any way to connect
> it to our product, it is within our rights to protect our brand. You
> can't call your new car company Toyotaa either, Toyota can sue and will
> if they think it infringes on their brand.
>
> You are quite welcome to write your own SCM. You may not take advantage
> of our work, check into the law.
> --
> ---
> Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
>
> ----- End forwarded message -----
Ah, thanks, Pavel. I like to start the day with a bit of humor.
--
Murray J. Root
On 2003-03-14T11:51:32,
Pavel Machek <[email protected]> said:
> As for it being on your own time, let's see if SuSE wants the negative
> publicity. I'm quite willing to make a stink, you've annoyed me and
> I've put up with as much as I'm going to.
Ok, Larry, you have finally done the coyote stunt. Please report how it really
feels, stepping of the cliff.
So far, I have considered BK a very cool piece of work, and not taken a
political interest in it. But by threatening SuSE developers (for work done on
their own time, and for merely describing something as BK-compatible) by
threatening SuSE with bad publicity, I can't even begin to describe my disgust
for you.
Technically, you are very competent. BK proves that, no doubt. But you should
take a year off and work on your social skills. Because, as it is, you _are_
making a stink.
Sincerely,
Lars Marowsky-Br?e <[email protected]>
--
Principal Squirrel
SuSE Labs - Research & Development, SuSE Linux AG
"If anything can go wrong, it will." "Chance favors the prepared (mind)."
-- Capt. Edward A. Murphy -- Louis Pasteur
On Fri, 14 Mar 2003, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Never ever use word KitBeeper, Larry thinks he owns the world.
No, he has however a right to protect his trademark, which comprises
names that are so similar that they can be mistaken for his trademark.
However, you're not getting anywhere with publishing private mail
without prior permission. That's betrayal of secrets and privacy, and if
Larry jumps on you for this, he'll rightfully do so.
> PS: I know forwarding personal message to the mailing list is not
> polite, but this is more of legal threat than personal message...
So paraphrase it if you need the information passed on.
> PPS: About Toyota: I may not be able to call my company Toyota (if you
> have registered trademark in czech republic, which I doubt), but I'm
> sure able to say that my car contains same engine as Toyota
> 1234cdt. And as you named directory in the repository BitKeeper,
> there's no chance not to mention it.
If you make sufficiently clear (for either BitMover or the Courts) that
your product is not the original BitKeeper or KitBeeper, then that's
probably fine.
As to the "compatible", it's a difficult point that I don't want to drop
a statement about. I'm not a lawyer. I'd wish that you can find a way to
describe what your software does without infringing on their trademark.
If BitMover think that you're using their protected brand/trademark to
promote your product, then they can demand that you omit doing so.
Whether that's enforcable by Czech law, is an entirely different matter.
You'll have to seek legal advise if you need to find out.
[SNIPPED...]
You don't need this:
I (trademark I.inc) think (tm Thinktank Corp) that (tm that Co.)
is ("depends upon what is -is", Bubba Clinton)....
All you need is BitKeeper (tm) when you reference something like
Bayer Aspirin (tm) in the United States. Common usage does not
require blurbs like the first line, above.
Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.4.20 on an i686 machine (797.90 BogoMips).
Why is the government concerned about the lunatic fringe? Think about it.
> [[email protected]]
>
> Never ever use [the] word KitBeeper, Larry thinks he owns the world.
Okay, how about you calm down, have a cup of coffee and think for
two seconds whether it's not actually you who's totally lost it today?
--
Tomas Szepe <[email protected]>
On Fri, 2003-03-14 at 12:06, Matthias Andree wrote:
> No, he has however a right to protect his trademark, which comprises
> names that are so similar that they can be mistaken for his trademark.
>
> However, you're not getting anywhere with publishing private mail
> without prior permission. That's betrayal of secrets and privacy, and if
> Larry jumps on you for this, he'll rightfully do so.
When you are dealing with someone apparently being a corporate bully you
have no choice quite often but to publicize stuff. Whether Larry is
actually unreasonable is kind of hard to tell without all the context.
If Larry feels bitbucket is a lot like bitkeeper then I see his point.
If he's moaning about things like "foobar is a tool for reading
BitKeeper repositories" then I guess he forgot to take his pills this
morning 8)
Unfortunately all the current bad feeling and suspicion keeps
magnifying probably minor misunderstandings into large ones
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.
--
/"\ / For information and quotes, email us at
\ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN / [email protected]
X AGAINST HTML MAIL / http://www.lrsehosting.com/
/ \ AND POSTINGS / [email protected]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 12:50:55PM +0100, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> On 2003-03-14T11:51:32,
> Pavel Machek <[email protected]> said:
>
> > As for it being on your own time, let's see if SuSE wants the negative
> > publicity. I'm quite willing to make a stink, you've annoyed me and
> > I've put up with as much as I'm going to.
>
> Ok, Larry, you have finally done the coyote stunt. Please report how it really
> feels, stepping of the cliff.
It feels just fine, perhaps because I haven't stepped off any cliff.
You might want to stop and consider what SuSE would do if someone decided
they didn't like SuSE and came up with a pathetic shell script and started
describing it as "a system compatible with SuSE". I'm pretty sure that
your lawyers would be all over them in about 30 seconds. Ditto for Red
Hat, Alan. I believe it is your founder who has carefully explained to
all of us the importance of brand. In fact, isn't the point that Red Hat
is nothing *but* brand? So how fast would I get sued if I came out with
"Larry's Red Hat Linux"? Pretty fast, right?
I stand behind my statements. If you don't like them, oh, darn.
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
On Fri, 14 Mar 2003 08:33:39 CST, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> said:
> 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.
At least in the US, not only does he have the right to defend the name,
he has the *obligation*. If a trademark slips into "common usage", the owner
loses it. This has already happened to the floor covering 'linoleum', and
is why a certain manufacturer of copying devices gets rather antsy anytime
a TV or movie script contains a line like "Let me go xerox this", and then
shows any other manufacturer's copier.
On Fri, 2003-03-14 at 14:43, Larry McVoy wrote:
> You might want to stop and consider what SuSE would do if someone decided
> they didn't like SuSE and came up with a pathetic shell script and started
> describing it as "a system compatible with SuSE". I'm pretty sure that
> your lawyers would be all over them in about 30 seconds. Ditto for Red
> Hat, Alan. I believe it is your founder who has carefully explained to
> all of us the importance of brand. In fact, isn't the point that Red Hat
> is nothing *but* brand? So how fast would I get sued if I came out with
> "Larry's Red Hat Linux"? Pretty fast, right?
>
> I stand behind my statements. If you don't like them, oh, darn.
I thought you were above deliberately tangling unrelated questions to
try and make a bogus point. Lets think about this clearly.
"XYZ runs on Red Hat Linux"
"XYZ reads Red Hat Linux RPM databases"
"XYZ imports Oracle Databases into Bananavision"
versus
"Larry's Red Hat Linux"
"compatible" is a tricky word. Claiming compatibility at least in the
EU isn't about trademarks its about truth. If I say "compatible with all
Ford cars", it should be exactly that.
I'd certainly expect people to say things like "does [xyz] with [app]
whatever" not "compatible with". So its fair for example IMHO to say
"bitbucket is a tool for freeing bitkeeper data" but not to
say things like "bitbucket is a bk replacement"
And Red Hat is a lot more than brand. The value of a brand is not just
the brand but what it delivers. Same with Bitkeeper as a brand.
Alan
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 04:10:49PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-03-14 at 14:43, Larry McVoy wrote:
> > You might want to stop and consider what SuSE would do if someone decided
> > they didn't like SuSE and came up with a pathetic shell script and started
> > describing it as "a system compatible with SuSE". I'm pretty sure that
> > your lawyers would be all over them in about 30 seconds. Ditto for Red
> > Hat, Alan. I believe it is your founder who has carefully explained to
> > all of us the importance of brand. In fact, isn't the point that Red Hat
> > is nothing *but* brand? So how fast would I get sued if I came out with
> > "Larry's Red Hat Linux"? Pretty fast, right?
> >
> > I stand behind my statements. If you don't like them, oh, darn.
>
> I thought you were above deliberately tangling unrelated questions to
> try and make a bogus point. Lets think about this clearly.
>
> "XYZ runs on Red Hat Linux"
> "XYZ reads Red Hat Linux RPM databases"
> "XYZ imports Oracle Databases into Bananavision"
>
> versus
>
> "Larry's Red Hat Linux"
I thought you were above deliberately tangling unrelated questions to try
and distract from my perfectly valid point.
"BitBucket: GPL-ed BitKeeper clone"
"The goal of this project is to produce a system compatible with BitKeeper"
Let's try a little simple substitution since you seem to be needing coffee
this morning:
"Red Cap: a proprietary Red Hat clone"
"The goal of this system is to produce a system compatible with Red Hat"
Go run those statements by your lawyers, Alan, and then please report
what they said back here.
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
On Fri, 2003-03-14 at 15:14, Larry McVoy wrote:
> "BitBucket: GPL-ed BitKeeper clone"
That one I have issues with too, as I said its about what it says.
> "The goal of this project is to produce a system compatible with BitKeeper"
Its a goal. It doesn't say it is, whats the problem ? Together sure you
have a couple of legs to stand on.
So if it said
"BitBucket: a GPL version control project"
or
"BitBucket: a tool for extracting Bitkeeper repositories"
"The goal of this project is to produce a tool to free bitkeeper data
from Larry McVoy"
we'd all be happy and could go back to sleep ?
Alan
> we'd all be happy and could go back to sleep ?
Nice try. Let's try again (and we'll keep on trying until you do it)
"Red Cap: a proprietary Red Hat clone"
"The goal of this system is to produce a system compatible with Red Hat"
Are your lawyers happy with that? You said, with respect to my mail,
"When you are dealing with someone apparently being a corporate bully".
The point is to clarify what is acceptable corporate behaviour and what
is not. The benchmark is "what would Red Hat do" or "what would SuSE do".
If they would handle it differently, I'll be happy to follow their lead.
I put the statements into a clear framing of the Red Hat context and
I'll keep doing it until you go ask the question of your lawyers.
I'm asking you again, would Red Hat behave any differently?
Don't change the subject, just answer the question.
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
On Fri, 2003-03-14 at 15:29, Larry McVoy wrote:
> > we'd all be happy and could go back to sleep ?
>
> Nice try. Let's try again (and we'll keep on trying until you do it)
>
> "Red Cap: a proprietary Red Hat clone"
> "The goal of this system is to produce a system compatible with Red Hat"
Larry, stop being an asshole, just for once in your life and either answer the
question or run for governor
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 01:06:04PM +0100, Matthias Andree wrote:
> If BitMover think that you're using their protected brand/trademark to
> promote your product, then they can demand that you omit doing so.
I have to disagree. What is CSSC vs SCCS, or GAIM vs AIM or any other such
thing that is regularly done.
If Larry's product truly is of the calibre that he believes it to be, the
only way for a GPL'ed clone to meet the same standards would be for the GPL
community to put in a lot of hard work. As long as no lines of code are
copied from the Bit Keeper source code, I don't see any legal grounds that
could be stood on that would not set a very horrible precidence for all other
GPL works that present compatible interfaces to proprietary code.
I respect Larry's position. He has a company invested in this. It is so much
easier for somebody to come along 5 years later, pick up all the good ideas,
and implement something better, than to actually develop a product from
scratch. This sort of 'ease' is almost anti-competitive.
But, that is why the patent system exists, and a patent is the only
real way for Larry to defend himself. He cannot demand that people not
mention the name Bit Keeper any more than the owner of SCCS demand
that Bit Keeper or CSSC not mention the name SCCS.
I don't envy Larry's position, however, from a GPL-subscriber's
perspective, Larry's product is anti-competitive and needs to be
replaced by a functionally equivalent, potentially interface
compatible, GPL version of Bit Keeper.
It is just how things work. The suggested that Red Hat could be used
as the basis for a different product, and the Red Hat lawyers would
have a field day, is moot as well, since companies like Mandrake have
already done this. "Look at us, we're Red Hat with PGCC-compiled
packages, a new install interface, and a few driver modules. Buy our
product instead."
mark
--
[email protected]/[email protected]/[email protected] __________________________
. . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | 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...
http://mark.mielke.cc/
> It is just how things work. The suggested that Red Hat could be used
> as the basis for a different product, and the Red Hat lawyers would
> have a field day, is moot as well, since companies like Mandrake have
> already done this. "Look at us, we're Red Hat with PGCC-compiled
> packages, a new install interface, and a few driver modules. Buy our
> product instead."
I'd suggest you hit http://www.mandrakesoft.com/search?query=Red+Hat&l=english
and you'll see all of 9 instances of the term Red Hat on their web site and
I can't find a single one where they are saying what you say they are saying.
I'm not sure why you think what you do but it's simply incorrect. Brand name
is a well established business asset and businesses are absolutely allowed,
and as someone else mentioned (thanks), obligated to protect.
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
Hi Larry,
On Fri, 2003-03-14 at 15:14, Larry McVoy wrote:
> Let's try a little simple substitution since you seem to be needing coffee
> this morning:
>
> "Red Cap: a proprietary Red Hat clone"
> "The goal of this system is to produce a system compatible with Red Hat"
>
> Go run those statements by your lawyers, Alan, and then please report
> what they said back here.
I just did, and they said just what I'd expect from common sense. A
compatibility claim is, in principle, just fine.
Specifically, any attempt to pass off something that didn't come from
Red Hat as an official Red Hat product was verboten; but
I would distinguish this from someone who is promoting their own
product, let's call it BillyBob's Linux, and who makes a claim
that it is "compatible with Red Hat Linux." So long as the
compatibility statement is not used prominently in the
advertising of the product and so long as the statement is, in
fact, true, this would likely constitute a fair use of our mark,
roughly along the lines of comparative advertising.
Cheers,
Stephen
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 08:33:39AM -0600, [email protected] 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
it.
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... :-)
mark
--
[email protected]/[email protected]/[email protected] __________________________
. . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | 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...
http://mark.mielke.cc/
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 08:03:14AM -0800, Larry McVoy wrote:
> > It is just how things work. The suggested that Red Hat could be used
> > as the basis for a different product, and the Red Hat lawyers would
> > have a field day, is moot as well, since companies like Mandrake have
> > already done this. "Look at us, we're Red Hat with PGCC-compiled
> > packages, a new install interface, and a few driver modules. Buy our
> > product instead."
> I'd suggest you hit
> http://www.mandrakesoft.com/search?query=Red+Hat&l=english and
> you'll see all of 9 instances of the term Red Hat on their web site
> and I can't find a single one where they are saying what you say
> they are saying.
Since I don't use Mandrake, I don't normally look at their web page. As I
recall, Mandrake began using the sales strategy that I mention above. Since
then (a few years later), they have branched into their own product. I would
expect any clone to do the same. Eventually people realize that "Hey, I don't
have to have the exact same interface, I can tweak this, and make it better
than the original" and other such things. This is where I put Mandrake now.
> I'm not sure why you think what you do but it's simply incorrect. Brand name
> is a well established business asset and businesses are absolutely allowed,
> and as someone else mentioned (thanks), obligated to protect.
You are allowed to defend your trademark, and out of necessity, you
are effectively obligated to protect your own trademark, however, the
question as to whether a judge would agree with you on a specific
defense claim is always up for grabs.
I suggest the non-BitKeeper supporters choose a different name, however, if
they choose to use a similar name, it is your obligation to defend your name,
and if you win, it will cost you money, and if you lose, it will fortify
the non-BitKeeper supporters' position. This is all normal business.
My position: It sucks to be you Larry. You've put in all this work,
you can't continue to pay your employees if you give your product away
for free, and since you don't give it away for free, people want to
re-invent your product so they can give it away for free. I don't think
the US laws cover your situation. They work a lot better for products such
as the automobile, or fridges, than for you. Sorry.
mark
--
[email protected]/[email protected]/[email protected] __________________________
. . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | 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...
http://mark.mielke.cc/
On 14 Mar 2003, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
> > Let's try a little simple substitution since you seem to be needing coffee
> > this morning:
> >
> > "Red Cap: a proprietary Red Hat clone"
> > "The goal of this system is to produce a system compatible with Red Hat"
Check with your lawyers again, since Red Hat has posted in the past that
'similar' namings would be chased after. I think the example they used was
'Pink Fedora'.
--
-- John E. Jasen ([email protected])
-- User Error #2361: Please insert coffee and try again.
Hi,
On Fri, 2003-03-14 at 16:21, John Jasen wrote:
> > > Let's try a little simple substitution since you seem to be needing coffee
> > > this morning:
> > >
> > > "Red Cap: a proprietary Red Hat clone"
> > > "The goal of this system is to produce a system compatible with Red Hat"
>
> Check with your lawyers again, since Red Hat has posted in the past that
> 'similar' namings would be chased after. I think the example they used was
> 'Pink Fedora'.
Having a product name "confusingly similar" to another one _is_ grounds
for trademark action. See Lindows, Mobilix etc. (And yes, of course,
it's a very subjective thing in many cases.)
But simply comparing one product to another is not the same.
I'd expect using a name like "BitBucket" to be much more at risk of
being a trademark infringement than merely claiming that a project "aims
to be BitKeeper compatible" or "can read BitKeeper repositories."
Cheers,
Stephen
> > Check with your lawyers again, since Red Hat has posted in the past that
> > 'similar' namings would be chased after. I think the example they used was
> > 'Pink Fedora'.
>
> Having a product name "confusingly similar" to another one _is_ grounds
> for trademark action. See Lindows, Mobilix etc. (And yes, of course,
> it's a very subjective thing in many cases.)
>
> But simply comparing one product to another is not the same.
>
> I'd expect using a name like "BitBucket" to be much more at risk of
> being a trademark infringement than merely claiming that a project "aims
> to be BitKeeper compatible" or "can read BitKeeper repositories."
But it can't read BK repositories in many cases. We support compressed
repositories, it can't read those. We support many corner cases which
SCCS didn't handle, it can't read those. It can't reproduce all of the
extensions that we have added. In other words, saying what Pavel has
is like BitKeeper is like saying cat is like Word because they both read
data off of disk.
That's the whole point. If we sit back and let people think that he has
something remotely similar to BK, it devalues BitKeeper in the mind of
those people. Since this is a very complex system with lots of subtle
features, people easily get confused. What Pavel has doesn't approach
the functionality of CVS, let alone BitKeeper, yet he is describing it
as a BitKeeper clone. If we allow that, we're just shooting our brand
name dead.
It's amusing, perhaps, to relate that we have been on the other side
of this debate in the past. We used to have a section in our comparisons
on ClearCase and we said that CC was no longer actively developed. The
Rational lawyers kicked up a fuss, their view was different. We had
said that because the product is basically done, it isn't rapidly evolving
the way a young product does, it's done. But they do port it to new
platforms and bug fix it and their (valid) position was that it was
actively developed. We promptly fixed the web page, they signed off
the existing page, no fuss, no muss.
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
On Fri, 2003-03-14 at 10:29, Larry McVoy wrote:
> > we'd all be happy and could go back to sleep ?
>
> Nice try. Let's try again (and we'll keep on trying until you do it)
>
> "Red Cap: a proprietary Red Hat clone"
> "The goal of this system is to produce a system compatible with Red Hat"
>
> Are your lawyers happy with that? You said, with respect to my mail,
> "When you are dealing with someone apparently being a corporate bully".
>
> The point is to clarify what is acceptable corporate behaviour and what
> is not. The benchmark is "what would Red Hat do" or "what would SuSE do".
> If they would handle it differently, I'll be happy to follow their lead.
>
> I put the statements into a clear framing of the Red Hat context and
> I'll keep doing it until you go ask the question of your lawyers.
> I'm asking you again, would Red Hat behave any differently?
Since I have nothing to do with Redhat I'm not sure what their lawyers
might say, but what about Microsoft lawyers? Microsoft has already
shown their willingness to pursue such cases (can anyone say Lindows?)
but I haven't seen their lawyers attack WINE, even though their stated
goal is "Wine is an implementation of the Windows Win32 and Win16 APIs
on top of X and Unix. Think of Wine as a Windows compatibility layer."
They sure are using the Windows name in claiming compatibility.
So are you exhibiting worse corporate behavior than Microsoft? It would
seem so. Do you think Redhat or SuSE would be worse? Maybe, but that
doesn't make it right.
Later,
Tom
This BitKeeper subject resurfaces every week or so and probably accounts for
5-10% of the linux-kernel mailing list traffic. While a terribly interesting
topic to some - it really isn't about the kernel. Could someone be so kind as
to create a linux-kernel-bitkeeper (or linux-kernel-revision-control) mailing
list so that these discussions (which obviously are not going away) can have
a proper home?
cheers,
On Friday 14 March 2003 08:37, Larry McVoy wrote:
> > > Check with your lawyers again, since Red Hat has posted in the past
> > > that 'similar' namings would be chased after. I think the example they
> > > used was 'Pink Fedora'.
> >
> > Having a product name "confusingly similar" to another one _is_ grounds
> > for trademark action. See Lindows, Mobilix etc. (And yes, of course,
> > it's a very subjective thing in many cases.)
> >
> > But simply comparing one product to another is not the same.
> >
> > I'd expect using a name like "BitBucket" to be much more at risk of
> > being a trademark infringement than merely claiming that a project "aims
> > to be BitKeeper compatible" or "can read BitKeeper repositories."
>
> But it can't read BK repositories in many cases. We support compressed
> repositories, it can't read those. We support many corner cases which
> SCCS didn't handle, it can't read those. It can't reproduce all of the
> extensions that we have added. In other words, saying what Pavel has
> is like BitKeeper is like saying cat is like Word because they both read
> data off of disk.
>
> That's the whole point. If we sit back and let people think that he has
> something remotely similar to BK, it devalues BitKeeper in the mind of
> those people. Since this is a very complex system with lots of subtle
> features, people easily get confused. What Pavel has doesn't approach
> the functionality of CVS, let alone BitKeeper, yet he is describing it
> as a BitKeeper clone. If we allow that, we're just shooting our brand
> name dead.
>
> It's amusing, perhaps, to relate that we have been on the other side
> of this debate in the past. We used to have a section in our comparisons
> on ClearCase and we said that CC was no longer actively developed. The
> Rational lawyers kicked up a fuss, their view was different. We had
> said that because the product is basically done, it isn't rapidly evolving
> the way a young product does, it's done. But they do port it to new
> platforms and bug fix it and their (valid) position was that it was
> actively developed. We promptly fixed the web page, they signed off
> the existing page, no fuss, no muss.
> So are you exhibiting worse corporate behavior than Microsoft? It would
> seem so.
Microsoft doesn't give you Windows for free. We wrote BK from scratch,
unlike any of the distro vendors, so saying they give out their stuff
for free isn't a valid comparison either.
We built a product, we gave out for free to help the kernel, everyone
agrees it is helping, and we get constantly attacked. You might stop
to consider that the smartest thing we could do would be to give up
but the cost of giving up is slowing down kernel development and
contributing to Linus' burnout.
I agree with Mark's statement, this sucks.
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
On Fri, 14 Mar 2003, Larry McVoy wrote:
> But it can't read BK repositories in many cases. We support compressed
> repositories, it can't read those. We support many corner cases which
> SCCS didn't handle, it can't read those. It can't reproduce all of the
> extensions that we have added. In other words, saying what Pavel has
> is like BitKeeper is like saying cat is like Word because they both read
> data off of disk.
>
> That's the whole point. If we sit back and let people think that he has
> something remotely similar to BK, it devalues BitKeeper in the mind of
> those people. Since this is a very complex system with lots of subtle
> features, people easily get confused. What Pavel has doesn't approach
> the functionality of CVS, let alone BitKeeper, yet he is describing it
> as a BitKeeper clone. If we allow that, we're just shooting our brand
> name dead.
Ok, let's try again. Because honestly I'm pretty sick of this BK saga on
lkml. It's maybe time to understand if people here is against Larry or
against the BK license itself. It seems to me that there's the request of
a read-only tool that is able to read BK repositories to fetch the latest
kernel trees. I proposed before to Larry and to lkml to have Larry to
release a read-only ( read-only here means, able only to fetch sources and
related information ) BK binary under different licensing. Why this
couldn't solve the problem if Larry and the anti-BK movement will find an
agreement on the license ? Larry, is it possible to release such tool
under a less strict license ?
- Davide
Hi,
On Fri, 2003-03-14 at 16:37, Larry McVoy wrote:
> > I'd expect using a name like "BitBucket" to be much more at risk of
> > being a trademark infringement than merely claiming that a project "aims
> > to be BitKeeper compatible" or "can read BitKeeper repositories."
>
> But it can't read BK repositories in many cases. We support compressed
> repositories, it can't read those.
That's a fair point, but
"Goal of this project is to create version managment system
compatible with BitKeeper"
isn't actually claiming full compatibility.
And before you say it, yes, I know that being compatible with bk
involves _much_ more than just reading its repositories.
> That's the whole point. If we sit back and let people think that he has
> something remotely similar to BK, it devalues BitKeeper in the mind of
> those people.
Absolutely. I'm not questioning your right to get inaccurate
comparisons corrected or removed. I'm just questioning whether you have
the right to demand that _all_ comparisons with BitKeeper be removed,
even when they are truthful (eg. "this project can read some
BitKeeper[tm] repositories.)
Cheers,
Stephen
Hi!
> I thought you were above deliberately tangling unrelated questions to try
> and distract from my perfectly valid point.
>
> "BitBucket: GPL-ed BitKeeper clone"
That was wrong and I apologize for it (I think I apologized already).
> "The goal of this project is to produce a system compatible with
> BitKeeper"
This is true; long term goal of BitBucket project is to be compatible
with KitBeeper. I think it is pretty clear.
Pavel
--
Horseback riding is like software...
...vgf orggre jura vgf serr.
On Fri, 2003-03-14 at 11:58, Larry McVoy wrote:
> > So are you exhibiting worse corporate behavior than Microsoft? It would
> > seem so.
>
> Microsoft doesn't give you Windows for free. We wrote BK from scratch,
> unlike any of the distro vendors, so saying they give out their stuff
> for free isn't a valid comparison either.
But now you are changing your own argument, it was you who wanted to see
examples of Redhat or SuSE not pursuing such things, I gave you an
example of Microsoft not pursuing such thing and now your saying that
not fair because they didn't give anything away, well, it was your
request to see such comparisons.
Also, here's a link to a release announcement for Mandrake 5.2
http://lwn.net/1999/0128/mandrake.html if you look at the "What is
Mandrake-Linux" you will see the example of Mandrake claiming 100%
Redhat compatibility.
ASPLinux also claims 100% Redhat compatibility on their website. Yellow
Dog Linux is a Redhat based distribution and uses that exact term on
their website.
> We built a product, we gave out for free to help the kernel, everyone
> agrees it is helping, and we get constantly attacked. You might stop
> to consider that the smartest thing we could do would be to give up
> but the cost of giving up is slowing down kernel development and
> contributing to Linus' burnout.
No, you haven't really given the product away for free. You have given
us the use of the tool for free, with a lot of strings attached, similar
to Microsoft giving IE away for free. Many people believe that the cost
to the community of using BitKeeper is much higher than the cost of
kernel development moving more slowly.
BTW, I'm not really against the use of BitKeeper for kernel development,
I just think that in this case you're being a little unreasonable. I
was more understanding when his initial post claimed to be a "clone of
BitKeeper" which was certainly not the case, but as a "tool for reading
BitKeeper repositories" that seems to be reasonable. You argument that
it doesn't support all of the features seems pointless, of course it
doesn't, it's the first release of an open product in development, it
doesn't have to support all of the features. WINE still doesn't
implement many features of the Win32 API, but that is the goal of the
project and they can state that.
Later,
Tom
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 06:43:47AM -0800, Larry McVoy wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 12:50:55PM +0100, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> >
> > Ok, Larry, you have finally done the coyote stunt. Please report how it really
> > feels, stepping of the cliff.
>
> It feels just fine, perhaps because I haven't stepped off any cliff.
>
> You might want to stop and consider what SuSE would do if someone decided
> they didn't like SuSE and came up with a pathetic shell script and started
> describing it as "a system compatible with SuSE". I'm pretty sure that
> your lawyers would be all over them in about 30 seconds. Ditto for Red
To make the analogy more appropriate...
I am sure that SuSE would be all over the party titling and promoting
the shell script, but I don't think SuSE would be so quick to mention
anything to do with the employer of the person who independently
created the shell script.
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 09:09:15AM -0800, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> Ok, let's try again. Because honestly I'm pretty sick of this BK saga on
> lkml. It's maybe time to understand if people here is against Larry or
> against the BK license itself. It seems to me that there's the request of
> a read-only tool that is able to read BK repositories to fetch the latest
> kernel trees. I proposed before to Larry and to lkml to have Larry to
> release a read-only ( read-only here means, able only to fetch sources and
> related information ) BK binary under different licensing. Why this
> couldn't solve the problem if Larry and the anti-BK movement will find an
> agreement on the license ? Larry, is it possible to release such tool
> under a less strict license ?
No.
Because, in order to properly export data, you have to not understand
the BK file format, but you also have precisely follow BK's method
for creating the "weave" of changesets which produces a valid [GNU
patch / changeset / whatever].
Thus, even to have an open source BK export tool requires that key
BK algorithms be open sourced.
Jeff
On Fri, 14 Mar 2003, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 09:09:15AM -0800, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> > Ok, let's try again. Because honestly I'm pretty sick of this BK saga on
> > lkml. It's maybe time to understand if people here is against Larry or
> > against the BK license itself. It seems to me that there's the request of
> > a read-only tool that is able to read BK repositories to fetch the latest
> > kernel trees. I proposed before to Larry and to lkml to have Larry to
> > release a read-only ( read-only here means, able only to fetch sources and
> > related information ) BK binary under different licensing. Why this
> > couldn't solve the problem if Larry and the anti-BK movement will find an
> > agreement on the license ? Larry, is it possible to release such tool
> > under a less strict license ?
>
> No.
>
> Because, in order to properly export data, you have to not understand
> the BK file format, but you also have precisely follow BK's method
> for creating the "weave" of changesets which produces a valid [GNU
> patch / changeset / whatever].
>
> Thus, even to have an open source BK export tool requires that key
> BK algorithms be open sourced.
Precised that the CVS export works for this purpose, why should you need
to open source algos to simply fetch sources from BK repos ? And, I was
talking about a binary, not source.
- Davide
On Fri, 14 Mar 2003 12:56:24 EST, Tom Sightler said:
> On Fri, 2003-03-14 at 11:58, Larry McVoy wrote:
Question 1:
Larry - what would it cost to *buy* Linus and company a license?
Question 2:
What's the average pay scale for the people participating in this flame-fest,
in US$/hour, and how many hours have we spent on it?
Proposal:
Somebody start up a PayPal fund or something, and everybody contribute $N
to buy Linus a license in lieu of further bickering.
Geez. ;)
Previously Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
> I would distinguish this from someone who is promoting their own
> product, let's call it BillyBob's Linux, and who makes a claim
> that it is "compatible with Red Hat Linux." So long as the
> compatibility statement is not used prominently in the
> advertising of the product and so long as the statement is, in
> fact, true, this would likely constitute a fair use of our mark,
> roughly along the lines of comparative advertising.
In this case the 'advertising' does prominently mention BitKeeper (in
fact that is the whole reason for its existance). And it is compatible
with (bits of) BitKeeper. So it seems your lawyers agree with Larry.
Wichert.
--
Wichert Akkerman <[email protected]> http://www.wiggy.net/
A random hacker
Hi!
Please if there is going to be a real fight for this count me in! Tell
me the place and the hour.. we can meet somewhere and punch some faces around :D
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 12:50:55PM +0100, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> On 2003-03-14T11:51:32,
> Pavel Machek <[email protected]> said:
>
> > As for it being on your own time, let's see if SuSE wants the negative
> > publicity. I'm quite willing to make a stink, you've annoyed me and
> > I've put up with as much as I'm going to.
>
> Ok, Larry, you have finally done the coyote stunt. Please report how it really
> feels, stepping of the cliff.
>
> So far, I have considered BK a very cool piece of work, and not taken a
> political interest in it. But by threatening SuSE developers (for work done on
> their own time, and for merely describing something as BK-compatible) by
> threatening SuSE with bad publicity, I can't even begin to describe my disgust
> for you.
>
> Technically, you are very competent. BK proves that, no doubt. But you should
> take a year off and work on your social skills. Because, as it is, you _are_
> making a stink.
>
>
> Sincerely,
> Lars Marowsky-Br?e <[email protected]>
>
> --
> Principal Squirrel
> SuSE Labs - Research & Development, SuSE Linux AG
>
> "If anything can go wrong, it will." "Chance favors the prepared (mind)."
> -- Capt. Edward A. Murphy -- Louis Pasteur
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
--
Teodor Iacob,
Network Administrator
Astral TELECOM Internet
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 07:14:55AM -0800, Larry McVoy wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 04:10:49PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > On Fri, 2003-03-14 at 14:43, Larry McVoy wrote:
> > > You might want to stop and consider what SuSE would do if someone decided
> > > they didn't like SuSE and came up with a pathetic shell script and started
> > > describing it as "a system compatible with SuSE". I'm pretty sure that
> > > your lawyers would be all over them in about 30 seconds. Ditto for Red
> > > Hat, Alan. I believe it is your founder who has carefully explained to
> > > all of us the importance of brand. In fact, isn't the point that Red Hat
> > > is nothing *but* brand? So how fast would I get sued if I came out with
> > > "Larry's Red Hat Linux"? Pretty fast, right?
> > >
> > > I stand behind my statements. If you don't like them, oh, darn.
> >
> > I thought you were above deliberately tangling unrelated questions to
> > try and make a bogus point. Lets think about this clearly.
> >
> > "XYZ runs on Red Hat Linux"
> > "XYZ reads Red Hat Linux RPM databases"
> > "XYZ imports Oracle Databases into Bananavision"
> >
> > versus
> >
> > "Larry's Red Hat Linux"
>
> I thought you were above deliberately tangling unrelated questions to try
> and distract from my perfectly valid point.
>
> "BitBucket: GPL-ed BitKeeper clone"
> "The goal of this project is to produce a system compatible with BitKeeper"
>
> Let's try a little simple substitution since you seem to be needing coffee
> this morning:
>
> "Red Cap: a proprietary Red Hat clone"
> "The goal of this system is to produce a system compatible with Red Hat"
>
> Go run those statements by your lawyers, Alan, and then please report
> what they said back here.
Lawyer1 starts the process for the first statement: Lawyer1 got segmentation fault.
Laywer2 starts the process for the second statement: Lawery2 got cpu xceeded.
> --
> ---
> Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
On Fri, 14 Mar 2003 16:11:21 +0000, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-03-14 at 15:14, Larry McVoy wrote:
> > [My lawyer said]
>
> [But my lawyer says]
So much for self-regulation. I don't mind having the odd flamefest, since
every now and then something good comes out of them that goes beyond the
entertainment value.
However, I am very concerned about the state of a community that has its
members turn to their respective lawyers to ask for backup. Not only does
it reflect badly on our ability to resolve disputes, it also implies that
there is more than a loose relation between what is legal and what is
Right(TM), which is BS.
I contend that quoting lawyer advice in a flamewar on a community list
should automatically invoke Godwin's law, and just to be on the safe side,
I let it be known that you all sound like a bunch of Nazis. EOT.
Roger
At 08:37 AM 3/14/2003 -0800, Larry McVoy wrote:
> > > Check with your lawyers again, since Red Hat has posted in the past that
> > > 'similar' namings would be chased after. I think the example they
> used was
> > > 'Pink Fedora'.
> >
> > Having a product name "confusingly similar" to another one _is_ grounds
> > for trademark action. See Lindows, Mobilix etc. (And yes, of course,
> > it's a very subjective thing in many cases.)
product?
> > But simply comparing one product to another is not the same.
> >
> > I'd expect using a name like "BitBucket" to be much more at risk of
> > being a trademark infringement than merely claiming that a project "aims
> > to be BitKeeper compatible" or "can read BitKeeper repositories."
>
>But it can't read BK repositories in many cases. We support compressed
>repositories, it can't read those. We support many corner cases which
>SCCS didn't handle, it can't read those. It can't reproduce all of the
>extensions that we have added. In other words, saying what Pavel has
>is like BitKeeper is like saying cat is like Word because they both read
>data off of disk.
Trivial marketing issue then.
> That's the whole point. If we sit back and let people think that he has
>something remotely similar to BK, it devalues BitKeeper in the mind of
>those people. Since this is a very complex system with lots of subtle
>features, people easily get confused. What Pavel has doesn't approach
>the functionality of CVS, let alone BitKeeper, yet he is describing it
>as a BitKeeper clone. If we allow that, we're just shooting our brand
>name dead.
Do you really think that your customers/potential customers are that
stupid? Is your marketing department so inept that they cannot compete
with something which by your own words is not even _close_ to being
equivalent? Remember, you have repeatedly touted the man-years of effort
involved in replication of BK functionality.
You are (sadly) making a complete _ass_ of yourself. If someone comes up
with a functional clone of BK, that's tough shit. You don't have to help
them, and you are free to hinder them in any way law permits.
In closing, I must say that you aren't the only one pissing me the fsck
off. I'm sick and tired of the entire thread[s]. As long as I can get at
the source, I couldn't give a fsck less what Linus or anybody else likes to
use. As long as tarballs exist and as long as patches hit this list, I'm a
happy camper.
Bah humbug, color me disappointed. I guess I need to start filtering my mail.
-Mike
Roger Luethi said:
<snip>
> I contend that quoting lawyer advice in a flamewar on a community list
> should automatically invoke Godwin's law, and just to be on the safe
> side, I let it be known that you all sound like a bunch of Nazis. EOT.
>
> Roger
FYI:
The Jargon Dictionary : Terms : The G Terms : Godwin's Law
Godwin's Law
Godwin's Law prov. [Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows longer,
the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is
over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever
argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the
existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups. However
there is also a widely- recognized codicil that any intentional triggering
of Godwin's Law in order to invoke its thread-ending effects will be
unsuccessful.
Pay special attention to that last sentence. :)
-Sandalle
--
PGP Key 0x5C8D199A5A317214
http://search.keyserver.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x5A317214
Eric Sandall | Source Mage GNU/Linux Developer
[email protected] | http://www.sourcemage.org/
http://eric.sandall.us/ | SysAdmin @ Inst. Shock Physics @ WSU
http://counter.li.org/ #196285 | http://www.shock.wsu.edu/
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 10:33:55PM +0200, Teodor Iacob wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Please if there is going to be a real fight for this count me in! Tell
> me the place and the hour.. we can meet somewhere and punch some faces around :D
To date, I haven't given much back to free projects but the odd patch,
bug report or tiny donation.
But, oh boy! If you need some size and muscle on this one, think of
Andre The Giant as my little brother. Just point me in the right
direction and tell me when I should stop hitting!
I'll be out by the bike racks after school.
Jeff Garzik <[email protected]> writes:
> Thus, even to have an open source BK export tool requires that key
> BK algorithms be open sourced.
You can't "open source" algorithms. Unpatented algorithms are always
free to use.
It's sufficient if somebody looks at the algorithms employed by BK and
documents them in plain English at a very abstract level. (Reading
your properly licensed copy of the BK source code and writing down
your thoughts can't be illegal, can it?) Somebody else can go ahead
and implement them, unencumbered by the BK copyright and BK license.
(This is not legal advice, it's just the way it is done in the
industry if you have to reverse-engineer the product of a competitor
for interoperability reasons.)
On Fri 14 Mar 03 13:06, Matthias Andree wrote:
> However, you're not getting anywhere with publishing private mail
> without prior permission. That's betrayal of secrets and privacy, and if
> Larry jumps on you for this, he'll rightfully do so.
Sorry, but that's just plain wrong. Whatever you email to someone, you'd
better be prepared to have appear in public, just as if you had said it to
them.
If you want some other arrangment, get a signed contract from them before
you email to them. Or be nice to people, that's another way to get them
to respect your wishes.
Regards,
Daniel
On Fri, 14 Mar 2003 22:48:55 +0100, Florian Weimer <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Jeff Garzik <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Thus, even to have an open source BK export tool requires that key
>> BK algorithms be open sourced.
>
>You can't "open source" algorithms. Unpatented algorithms are always
>free to use.
>
>It's sufficient if somebody looks at the algorithms employed by BK and
>documents them in plain English at a very abstract level. (Reading
>your properly licensed copy of the BK source code and writing down
>your thoughts can't be illegal, can it?) Somebody else can go ahead
>and implement them, unencumbered by the BK copyright and BK license.
If I were in BitMover, I would treat such advances as trade secrets,
like the formula for coca-cola. Trade secrets are ideas/processes
which are held privately. From the discussion it feels to me like they
have made some real advances in "keeping objects up to date across a
hetrogenous collection of systems and with a varying time flow" and
publishing that advance would remove their advantage.
With patents you have to publish the advance which would provide key
direction to competitors. Copyright is OK but also implies publishing.
You can keep to formula to coca-cola pretty much forever as long as
people want to buy the product.
John Alvord
At 04:11 PM 3/14/03 +0000, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
> > Let's try a little simple substitution since you seem to be needing coffee
> > this morning:
> >
> > "Red Cap: a proprietary Red Hat clone"
> > "The goal of this system is to produce a system compatible with Red
> Hat"
> >
> > Go run those statements by your lawyers, Alan, and then please report
> > what they said back here.
>
>I just did, and they said just what I'd expect from common sense. A
>compatibility claim is, in principle, just fine.
>
>Specifically, any attempt to pass off something that didn't come from
>Red Hat as an official Red Hat product was verboten; but
>
> I would distinguish this from someone who is promoting their own
> product, let's call it BillyBob's Linux, and who makes a claim
> that it is "compatible with Red Hat Linux." So long as the
> compatibility statement is not used prominently in the
> advertising of the product and so long as the statement is, in
> fact, true, this would likely constitute a fair use of our mark,
> roughly along the lines of comparative advertising.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer in any country.
I think, fellow Stephen, you are missing the point. The example includes a
trade name, "Red Cap" as the trademark for the new system. Now, I am not a
lawyer but I have been exposed to some of the seamer side of trademark
disputes, and "Red Cap" may well fail the trademark confusion test as not
being sufficiently different from the original trademark to avoid a person
from mistaking "Red Cap" for "Red Hat". The same, I assert, is true for
"KitBeeper" and "BitKeeper".
To take Mr. McVoy's example and show how to distance the new trademark from
the old one, let's look at your company name and Larry's straw man, "Red
Hat." Using that trusty writer's tool, the Thesaurus, we can come up with
some less confusing new trademarks:
Scarlet Cap
Crimson Chapeau (I like this one because of the alliteration)
Cherry Beanie
Blood Crown
Firehat
Ruby Headdress
Siena Skimmer
just to name a few.
So, what could be done for a working title of a project that is "compatible
with BitKeeper(tm)" that would not fail the confusion test?
Column A
-------------
Code
Codex
Opus
Root
Stem
Matrix
Nibble
Byte (dangerous, as it could lead to a confusion claim)
Two
Twovalue
Column B
-------------
Safe
Fortress
Holder
Bastion
Post
Bank
Stronghold
Arranger
Recorder
Matrix (repeated here as a possible second word)
Web
So, Pavel, take one from Column A, and one from Column B, and you have
candidate trademark names for your BitKeeper workalike, if you want to do
that much of a stretch.
I also through out these possibilities: NBK (Not Bit Keeper), NBKsafe,
SourceNBK, CodeNBK, ByteNBK, and so forth. To further drive the joke
"inside" try NBic, SourceNBic, and so forth. (I don't recall the pen
company selling source control software, so the only claim that the Bic
company sould make is trademark dilution -- your lawyer would best
determine if that is a possibility.)
To take it to the absurd, call your clone AJ or CL; it worked for Kubric
with the HAL 9000 in the movie, with IBM building much of the facade and
even allowing the use of its trademark typeface.
The third option is to forget the nonsense of building on the BitKeeper
name and come up with a name that best describes the functionality of what
you are doing, or (common) use the initials of the primary developers or
investors.
Interestingly enough, there was a discussion on a private mailing list I
subscribe to that was discussing the shortcoming of CVS and other source
management tools. I don't recall enough of the discussion to inject it
here; many of the participants on that list also read LKML, so they could
chime in with their ideas themselves. Try to think of real-life projects,
and how your source repository can simplify jobs commonly encountered when
trying to maintain a product.
I'll shut up now.
Satch
--
X -> unknown; Spurt -> drip of water under pressure
Expert -> X-Spurt -> Unknown drip under pressure.
==> Looking for work; see http://www.satchell.net/resumes
At 08:37 AM 3/14/03 -0800, Larry McVoy wrote:
>That's the whole point. If we sit back and let people think that he has
>something remotely similar to BK, it devalues BitKeeper in the mind of
>those people. Since this is a very complex system with lots of subtle
>features, people easily get confused. What Pavel has doesn't approach
>the functionality of CVS, let alone BitKeeper, yet he is describing it
>as a BitKeeper clone. If we allow that, we're just shooting our brand
>name dead.
That's not a trademark issue. You are claiming false
advertising. Different issue, and one I don't want to touch.
--
X -> unknown; Spurt -> drip of water under pressure
Expert -> X-Spurt -> Unknown drip under pressure.
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 08:56:11AM -0800, Christian Daudt wrote:
> This BitKeeper subject resurfaces every week or so and probably accounts for
> 5-10% of the linux-kernel mailing list traffic. While a terribly interesting
> topic to some - it really isn't about the kernel. Could someone be so kind as
> to create a linux-kernel-bitkeeper (or linux-kernel-revision-control) mailing
> list so that these discussions (which obviously are not going away) can have
> a proper home?
Use mutt - then you can ^R entire threads about BK if you're sick (like
me) of reading them. All this hubbub is turning into a freaking soap
opera. I can vividly imagine it as truly being one...
"As The SCM Turns"
Regards,
Josh
--
New PGP public key: 0x27AFC3EE
Stephen Satchell wrote:
> Scarlet Cap
> Crimson Chapeau (I like this one because of the alliteration)
> Cherry Beanie
> Blood Crown
> Firehat
> Ruby Headdress
> Siena Skimmer
This sounds like an excellent list to try on a barkeeper you
don't like :-)
> The third option is to forget the nonsense of building on the BitKeeper
> name and come up with a name that best describes the functionality of what
> you are doing, or (common) use the initials of the primary developers or
> investors.
AnnoyLarry, for 'A'+'L' == 'B'+'K' ?
- Werner
--
_________________________________________________________________________
/ Werner Almesberger, Buenos Aires, Argentina [email protected] /
/_http://www.almesberger.net/____________________________________________/
John Alvord <[email protected]> writes:
> If I were in BitMover, I would treat such advances as trade secrets,
It's a bit questionable to treat something as trade secret which is
licensed for certain forms of redistribution.
(Maybe the license has changed since summer 2002, I don't know.)
Hi!
> > I would distinguish this from someone who is promoting their own
> > product, let's call it BillyBob's Linux, and who makes a claim
> > that it is "compatible with Red Hat Linux." So long as the
> > compatibility statement is not used prominently in the
> > advertising of the product and so long as the statement is, in
> > fact, true, this would likely constitute a fair use of our mark,
> > roughly along the lines of comparative advertising.
>
> Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer in any country.
>
> I think, fellow Stephen, you are missing the point. The example includes a
> trade name, "Red Cap" as the trademark for the new system. Now, I am not a
> lawyer but I have been exposed to some of the seamer side of trademark
> disputes, and "Red Cap" may well fail the trademark confusion test as not
> being sufficiently different from the original trademark to avoid a person
> from mistaking "Red Cap" for "Red Hat". The same, I assert, is true for
> "KitBeeper" and "BitKeeper".
When Larry claims that BitKeeper is too similar to bit bucket, I'll
roll on the floor, laughing, and print his words onto the
T-shirt. [Bit bucket is jargon term for /dev/null,
http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/b/bit_bucket.html]
[I hope you'll at least laugh after long thread full of legaleese.]
Pavel
--
Horseback riding is like software...
...vgf orggre jura vgf serr.
John Alvord <[email protected]> writes:
>If I were in BitMover, I would treat such advances as trade secrets,
>like the formula for coca-cola. Trade secrets are ideas/processes
Oh yes, please. Can you spell "urban legend".
http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/formula.asp
http://home.kc.rr.com/laestrygon/cocacola/formula.htm
I do like the fact that there is actually alcohol in the original
recipe of "worlds most famous non-alcoholic beverage". :-)
Can we now please get back to the regular devfs flame wars?
Regards
Henning
--
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen INTERMETA GmbH
[email protected] +49 9131 50 654 0 http://www.intermeta.de/
Java, perl, Solaris, Linux, xSP Consulting, Web Services
freelance consultant -- Jakarta Turbine Development -- hero for hire
On Sat, 2003-03-15 at 12:20, Pavel Machek wrote:
> When Larry claims that BitKeeper is too similar to bit bucket, I'll
> roll on the floor, laughing, and print his words onto the
> T-shirt. [Bit bucket is jargon term for /dev/null,
> http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/b/bit_bucket.html]
Larry is right about the similarity of terms. Parody in certain
cases deals with copyright protections but not trademarks.
Follow Linus lead .. machekout, machekin ...
On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 12:57:21AM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Sat, 2003-03-15 at 12:20, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > When Larry claims that BitKeeper is too similar to bit bucket, I'll
> > roll on the floor, laughing, and print his words onto the
> > T-shirt. [Bit bucket is jargon term for /dev/null,
> > http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/b/bit_bucket.html]
>
> Larry is right about the similarity of terms. Parody in certain
> cases deals with copyright protections but not trademarks.
I've already suggested to Pavel that an open BitKeeper alternative ought to
be named "SourceGiver".
--
"Love the dolphins," she advised him. "Write by W.A.S.T.E.."
I second that emotion. Let's not lose track, though, of how the
BitKeeper issue affects kernel development. Giving the BitKeeper
discussions their own home
achieves 2 things: keeps the kernel development list focused on kernel
development and gets the BitKeeper issues hashed out better by making
those its own separate forum.
Regards,
Josef
Christian Daudt wrote:
>This BitKeeper subject resurfaces every week or so and probably accounts for
>5-10% of the linux-kernel mailing list traffic. While a terribly interesting
>topic to some - it really isn't about the kernel. Could someone be so kind as
>to create a linux-kernel-bitkeeper (or linux-kernel-revision-control) mailing
>list so that these discussions (which obviously are not going away) can have
>a proper home?
>
> cheers,
>
>-
>To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
>the body of a message to [email protected]
>More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>