Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 6 Oct 2002 11:05:51 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 6 Oct 2002 11:05:51 -0400 Received: from mx1.elte.hu ([157.181.1.137]:47577 "HELO mx1.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Sun, 6 Oct 2002 11:05:50 -0400 Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2002 17:22:33 +0200 (CEST) From: Ingo Molnar Reply-To: Ingo Molnar To: Larry McVoy Cc: "David S. Miller" , Linus Torvalds , Alan Cox , Subject: Re: New BK License Problem? In-Reply-To: <20021006075627.I9032@work.bitmover.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1127 Lines: 30 On Sun, 6 Oct 2002, Larry McVoy wrote: > > a simple question: does the BK license allow the Rational kernel > > developers to use BK (to eg. check out Linus' tree) when working on kernel > > support for ClearCase? > > I think the license is clear on that point. so BK cannot be used to access the kernel tree in that case, correct? I'm just wondering where the boundary line is. Eg. if i started working on a versioned filesystem today, i'd not be allowed to use BK. I just have to keep stuff like that in mind when using BK. > > perhaps you should restrict the BK license's wording to closed-source > > 'competitors' only > > And how would that solve the problem posed in your first question? in no way - but it would be a (small) incentive for them to open-source their kernel mods. Which would also enable you to use the technology. Ie. potentially good for you. Ingo - 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/