Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 19:04:16 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 19:04:16 -0400 Received: from pizda.ninka.net ([216.101.162.242]:2018 "EHLO pizda.ninka.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 19:04:12 -0400 Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2002 16:02:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <20021004.160216.58843127.davem@redhat.com> To: lm@bitmover.com Cc: tom_gall@mac.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: New BK License Problem? From: "David S. Miller" In-Reply-To: <20021004140802.E24148@work.bitmover.com> References: <20021004140802.E24148@work.bitmover.com> X-FalunGong: Information control. X-Mailer: Mew version 2.1 on Emacs 21.1 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 938 Lines: 21 From: Larry McVoy Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 14:08:02 -0700 The clause is specifically designed to target those companies which produce or sell commercial SCM systems. That's why we explicitly left out "distribute". The open source developers have nothing to worry about. I don't have any problems with what you're trying to achieve, but my fear is that it doesn't even do that. Nothing in your license changes stops someone from dark-room duplicating bitkeeper. Just as clone Intel processors are sold quite legally today. Intel lost their attempts to stop that and my current guess is that you have a smaller legal representation than Intel has :-) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/