Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 11:26:49 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 11:26:49 -0500 Received: from bitmover.com ([192.132.92.2]:28055 "EHLO mail.bitmover.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 11:26:48 -0500 Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 08:37:27 -0800 From: Larry McVoy To: "Stephen C. Tweedie" Cc: John Jasen , Larry McVoy , Alan Cox , Lars Marowsky-Bree , Pavel Machek , Linux Kernel Mailing List , vojtech@suse.cz Subject: Re: Never ever use word BitKeeper if Larry does not like you Message-ID: <20030314163727.GE8937@work.bitmover.com> Mail-Followup-To: Larry McVoy , "Stephen C. Tweedie" , John Jasen , Larry McVoy , Alan Cox , Lars Marowsky-Bree , Pavel Machek , Linux Kernel Mailing List , vojtech@suse.cz References: <1047659289.2566.109.camel@sisko.scot.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1047659289.2566.109.camel@sisko.scot.redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-MailScanner: Found to be clean Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2411 Lines: 46 > > 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 - 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/