Hi
I don't mean to start/restart/prolong a flame war about Bitkepper, but,
I have a few things I'd like to have clarified.
Would the conduction of research(and publication of results of same) on
the bitkeeper formats/protocols, preclude users from using the Free version
of Bitkeeper, for the research project?
Would the carrying out of such research using the free version of
Bitkeeper, prevent them from developing a product which contains
substantially similar capabilities of the BitKeeper Software in the
Future, assuming that all copies of Bitkeeper were destroyed before the
development started?
Would previous activity in the area of developing a product which
contains substantially similary features to Bitkeeper preclude users from
using the Free Bitkeeper software?
I apologise if you consider that this post would be better placed on a
different mailing list, but I felt I could get the most fulfilling
unbiased, and educational feedback here.
Regards
Rory
Rory Browne <[email protected]> writes:
> I don't mean to start/restart/prolong a flame war about Bitkepper, but,
> I have a few things I'd like to have clarified.
[snip]
I suggest you hire an attorney.
On Iau, 2003-07-17 at 13:05, Rory Browne wrote:
> Would previous activity in the area of developing a product which
> contains substantially similary features to Bitkeeper preclude users from
> using the Free Bitkeeper software?
Hire a lawyer or talk to the company selling it. This list is definitely
the wrong place to ask about it.
On Thu, Jul 17 2003, Rory Browne wrote:
> Hi
>
> I don't mean to start/restart/prolong a flame war about Bitkepper, but,
> I have a few things I'd like to have clarified.
Then keep it away from lkml? Why does everybody think that BK
discussions belong here?! News flash: they don't!
--
Jens Axboe
* Sean Neakums <[email protected]> [030717 13:12]:
> [snip]
>
> I suggest you hire an attorney.
That costs lotsa money. Money I can't really afford to pay.
* Jens Axboe <[email protected]> [030717 13:32]:
> Then keep it away from lkml? Why does everybody think that BK
> discussions belong here?! News flash: they don't!
>
I detect a note of anger in that post. Anger leads to hate, and hate
leads to the dark side. We'd hate to see linux developers lost to the
dark side. Besides I'm usually fairly sceptical about what I hear on the
news.
* Alan Cox:
> > Would previous activity in the area of developing a product which
> > contains substantially similary features to Bitkeeper preclude users
> > from
> > using the Free Bitkeeper software?
> Hire a lawyer or talk to the company selling it. This list is definitely
> the wrong place to ask about it.
-> Hire a lawyer:
See reply to Sean Neakums above.
-> Talk to Company selling it:
Reply would almost certainly be extremely biased.
-> Wrong Place:
Okay maybe for that small part of the message, but that small
part was added for, and only for completeness, but I thought I
dealt with the possibility of this being the wrong place at the
end of my last post. Having that said thanks to you, and Sean
for being polite in your reply.
Talking about this to the company selling bitkeeper would almost
certainly yield biased feedback, and here is where many people
have cross-examined the licence from top to bottom, and who've
investigated every little nook and crannie of the Licence(and please
don't bother telling me you aren't lawyers).
Regards
Rory
> * Sean Neakums <[email protected]> [030717 13:12]:
> > [snip]
> >
> > I suggest you hire an attorney.
>
> That costs lotsa money. Money I can't really afford to pay.
>
>
> * Jens Axboe <[email protected]> [030717 13:32]:
> > Then keep it away from lkml? Why does everybody think that BK
> > discussions belong here?! News flash: they don't!
> >
> I detect a note of anger in that post. Anger leads to hate, and hate
> leads to the dark side. We'd hate to see linux developers lost to the
> dark side. Besides I'm usually fairly sceptical about what I hear on the
> news.
>
> * Alan Cox:
> > > Would previous activity in the area of developing a product which
> > > contains substantially similary features to Bitkeeper preclude users
> > > from
> > > using the Free Bitkeeper software?
>
> > Hire a lawyer or talk to the company selling it. This list is definitely
> > the wrong place to ask about it.
>
> -> Hire a lawyer:
> See reply to Sean Neakums above.
>
> -> Talk to Company selling it:
> Reply would almost certainly be extremely biased.
>
> -> Wrong Place:
> Okay maybe for that small part of the message, but that small
> part was added for, and only for completeness, but I thought I
> dealt with the possibility of this being the wrong place at the
> end of my last post. Having that said thanks to you, and Sean
> for being polite in your reply.
>
> Talking about this to the company selling bitkeeper would almost
> certainly yield biased feedback, and here is where many people
> have cross-examined the licence from top to bottom, and who've
> investigated every little nook and crannie of the Licence(and please
> don't bother telling me you aren't lawyers).
1. Flamewars about BitKeeper tend to generate a lot of traffic.
2. vger.kernel.org has run out of /var/tmp space twice recently, which
has caused list traffic to get lost.
_Please_ take this off LKML.
John.
On Iau, 2003-07-17 at 14:39, Rory Browne wrote:
> -> Talk to Company selling it:
> Reply would almost certainly be extremely biased.
If you are doing pure research talk to Larry. At times he's an asshole
but most of the time he's a quite reasonable sane human being.
With apologies to the list for the off topic post (I'm really trying to
not annoy you guys but some stuff we can't let slide due to legalities).
On Thu, Jul 17, 2003 at 01:05:05PM +0100, Rory Browne wrote:
> Would the conduction of research(and publication of results of same) on
> the bitkeeper formats/protocols, preclude users from using the Free version
> of Bitkeeper, for the research project?
Yes, for the research project and/or anything else.
> Would the carrying out of such research using the free version of
> Bitkeeper, prevent them from developing a product which contains
> substantially similar capabilities of the BitKeeper Software in the
> Future, assuming that all copies of Bitkeeper were destroyed before the
> development started?
Yes.
> Would previous activity in the area of developing a product which
> contains substantially similary features to Bitkeeper preclude users from
> using the Free Bitkeeper software?
Yes.
Each question above can be restated as "Would it be OK if we used BK
in violation of its license?". The answer is no and if you did that we
would be forced to come after you, if we don't and some large company did
the same thing we would have a much tougher time enforcing the license.
Trademarks and licenses tend to lose their value if you don't enforce
them.
Your questions indicate one of two things: you either have a burning
desire to work on BK itself or a burning desire to copy BK. If it's
the former, that's easy, send us a resume and if you are a good engineer
we'll hire you, we need good engineers with a solid understanding of file
systems, distributed systems, graphs and sets, and/or human interfaces.
If you are trying to copy BK, give it up. We'll simply follow in the
footsteps of every other company faced with this sort of thing and change
the protocol every 6 months. Since you would be chasing us you can never
catch up. If you managed to stay close then we'd put digital signatures
into the protocol to prevent your clone from interoperating with BK.
Instead of trying to copy our work in violation of our license, you'd be
far better served by doing some new work. If you like SCM then either
work here, work on some other SCM unrelated to BK, or expect a costly
discussion with a lawyer. I realize this is an unpopular position but
that's tough, it's our code and our license and you obey the rules
or suffer the consequences. The license is a contract and it's an
enforceable contract, we have gone up against a company who spends more
on lawyers in a week than our annual gross revenues and successfully
enforced it.
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
I had hoped to bring this discussion to a more private level between
myself and Larry McVoy.
I am however disgusted to find that he has shared details, which I
explicitly marked as Private, with a third Party, namely One of the
Educational institutes I am involved with.
I find this breach of confidence distrubing.
* Larry McVoy <[email protected]> [030717 15:55]:
> With apologies to the list for the off topic post (I'm really trying to
> not annoy you guys but some stuff we can't let slide due to legalities).
>
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2003 at 01:05:05PM +0100, Rory Browne wrote:
> > Would the conduction of research(and publication of results of same) on
> > the bitkeeper formats/protocols, preclude users from using the Free version
> > of Bitkeeper, for the research project?
>
> Yes, for the research project and/or anything else.
>
> > Would the carrying out of such research using the free version of
> > Bitkeeper, prevent them from developing a product which contains
> > substantially similar capabilities of the BitKeeper Software in the
> > Future, assuming that all copies of Bitkeeper were destroyed before the
> > development started?
>
> Yes.
>
> > Would previous activity in the area of developing a product which
> > contains substantially similary features to Bitkeeper preclude users from
> > using the Free Bitkeeper software?
>
> Yes.
>
> Each question above can be restated as "Would it be OK if we used BK
> in violation of its license?". The answer is no and if you did that we
> would be forced to come after you, if we don't and some large company did
> the same thing we would have a much tougher time enforcing the license.
> Trademarks and licenses tend to lose their value if you don't enforce
> them.
>
> Your questions indicate one of two things: you either have a burning
> desire to work on BK itself or a burning desire to copy BK. If it's
> the former, that's easy, send us a resume and if you are a good engineer
> we'll hire you, we need good engineers with a solid understanding of file
> systems, distributed systems, graphs and sets, and/or human interfaces.
>
> If you are trying to copy BK, give it up. We'll simply follow in the
> footsteps of every other company faced with this sort of thing and change
> the protocol every 6 months. Since you would be chasing us you can never
> catch up. If you managed to stay close then we'd put digital signatures
> into the protocol to prevent your clone from interoperating with BK.
>
> Instead of trying to copy our work in violation of our license, you'd be
> far better served by doing some new work. If you like SCM then either
> work here, work on some other SCM unrelated to BK, or expect a costly
> discussion with a lawyer. I realize this is an unpopular position but
> that's tough, it's our code and our license and you obey the rules
> or suffer the consequences. The license is a contract and it's an
> enforceable contract, we have gone up against a company who spends more
> on lawyers in a week than our annual gross revenues and successfully
> enforced it.
> --
> ---
> Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
On Thu, Jul 17, 2003 at 10:01:07PM +0100, Rory Browne wrote:
> I had hoped to bring this discussion to a more private level between
> myself and Larry McVoy.
>
> I am however disgusted to find that he has shared details, which I
> explicitly marked as Private, with a third Party, namely One of the
> Educational institutes I am involved with.
>
> I find this breach of confidence distrubing.
Was this BEFORE or after you posted to lkml?
On Thu, Jul 17, 2003 at 10:01:07PM +0100, Rory Browne wrote:
> [is unhappy about our license enforcement]
I'm sorry you feel that way. It's not personal. We'll protect our code
just like you will protect yours. This community is very aggressive at
protecting their work, look at the recent fuss over the Linksys device
that was using Linux. Nobody got upset at the enforcement of the GPL and
nobody should get upset at us enforcing our license.
It's not personal, don't take it that way, it wasn't intended that way.
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
On Thu, Jul 17, 2003 at 10:01:07PM +0100, Rory Browne wrote:
> I had hoped to bring this discussion to a more private level between
> myself and Larry McVoy.
>
> I am however disgusted to find that he has shared details, which I
> explicitly marked as Private, with a third Party, namely One of the
> Educational institutes I am involved with.
>
> I find this breach of confidence distrubing.
Substatiate your accusation or go away. I see nothing in
his followup that even hints that there was any private
communication. He quotes what you posted in this public
forum and addresses that, and that only.
Like most here i often disagree with Larry (though not about
his right to pick his own licence and enforce it) and find
his statements or the manner of them irritating but in this
case his response is exactly on the mark and except for his
friendly suggesting you might work for him matches my
initial reaction to your post.
> * Larry McVoy <[email protected]> [030717 15:55]:
> > With apologies to the list for the off topic post (I'm really trying to
> > not annoy you guys but some stuff we can't let slide due to legalities).
Accepted. A very nice and mild response on your part. My
apologies for this posting too but when someone does
well as you have with that posting he aught not be met
with the above reaction.
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 17, 2003 at 01:05:05PM +0100, Rory Browne wrote:
> > > Would the conduction of research(and publication of results of same) on
> > > the bitkeeper formats/protocols, preclude users from using the Free version
> > > of Bitkeeper, for the research project?
> >
> > Yes, for the research project and/or anything else.
> >
> > > Would the carrying out of such research using the free version of
> > > Bitkeeper, prevent them from developing a product which contains
> > > substantially similar capabilities of the BitKeeper Software in the
> > > Future, assuming that all copies of Bitkeeper were destroyed before the
> > > development started?
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > > Would previous activity in the area of developing a product which
> > > contains substantially similary features to Bitkeeper preclude users from
> > > using the Free Bitkeeper software?
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > Each question above can be restated as "Would it be OK if we used BK
> > in violation of its license?". The answer is no and if you did that we
> > would be forced to come after you, if we don't and some large company did
> > the same thing we would have a much tougher time enforcing the license.
> > Trademarks and licenses tend to lose their value if you don't enforce
> > them.
> >
> > Your questions indicate one of two things: you either have a burning
> > desire to work on BK itself or a burning desire to copy BK. If it's
> > the former, that's easy, send us a resume and if you are a good engineer
> > we'll hire you, we need good engineers with a solid understanding of file
> > systems, distributed systems, graphs and sets, and/or human interfaces.
> >
> > If you are trying to copy BK, give it up. We'll simply follow in the
> > footsteps of every other company faced with this sort of thing and change
> > the protocol every 6 months. Since you would be chasing us you can never
> > catch up. If you managed to stay close then we'd put digital signatures
> > into the protocol to prevent your clone from interoperating with BK.
> >
> > Instead of trying to copy our work in violation of our license, you'd be
> > far better served by doing some new work. If you like SCM then either
> > work here, work on some other SCM unrelated to BK, or expect a costly
> > discussion with a lawyer. I realize this is an unpopular position but
> > that's tough, it's our code and our license and you obey the rules
> > or suffer the consequences. The license is a contract and it's an
> > enforceable contract, we have gone up against a company who spends more
> > on lawyers in a week than our annual gross revenues and successfully
> > enforced it.
> > --
> > ---
> > 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/
>
--
________________________________________________________________
J.W. Schultz Pegasystems Technologies
email address: [email protected]
Remember Cernan and Schmitt
Larry McVoy wrote:
> If you managed to stay close then we'd put digital signatures
> into the protocol to prevent your clone from interoperating with BK.
If this hypothetical scenario were to occur, I believe that reverse
engineering specific parts of the software, for the specific purpose
of getting the signature key, in order to use it specifically for
interoperating with the software, would be allowed regardless of
license here in Europe, and perhaps in the USA too.
This, however, is not legal advice and I would certainly consult a
lawyer for such a sensitive question if I wanted to do that. I have
read that the penalties for misinterpreting include imprisonment in
the USA.
-- Jamie
On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 05:56:15PM +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> Larry McVoy wrote:
> > If you managed to stay close then we'd put digital signatures
> > into the protocol to prevent your clone from interoperating with BK.
>
> If this hypothetical scenario were to occur, I believe that reverse
> engineering specific parts of the software, for the specific purpose
> of getting the signature key, in order to use it specifically for
> interoperating with the software, would be allowed regardless of
> license here in Europe, and perhaps in the USA too.
Well off topic here, but in the US at least, the DMCA makes this
hands-off if these features are added under the auspices of security
or server license protection.
This is part of the reason for certain monopolists adding "security
features" to their newer file formats.
Brian McGroarty wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 05:56:15PM +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> > Larry McVoy wrote:
> > > If you managed to stay close then we'd put digital signatures
> > > into the protocol to prevent your clone from interoperating with BK.
> >
> > If this hypothetical scenario were to occur, I believe that reverse
> > engineering specific parts of the software, for the specific purpose
> > of getting the signature key, in order to use it specifically for
> > interoperating with the software, would be allowed regardless of
> > license here in Europe, and perhaps in the USA too.
>
> Well off topic here, but in the US at least, the DMCA makes this
> hands-off if these features are added under the auspices of security
> or server license protection.
Yes, that's exactly what I had in mind when I said prison was one of
the dangers of making interoperable software.
-- Jamie