Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 11:45:37 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 11:45:37 -0500 Received: from s64-180-103-186.bc.hsia.telus.net ([64.180.103.186]:3599 "EHLO proxy.octigabay.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id convert rfc822-to-8bit; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 11:45:33 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Christian Daudt To: Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Linux-kernel-revision-control list (was: Re: Never ever use word BitKeeper if Larry does not like you) Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 08:56:11 -0800 User-Agent: KMail/1.4.3 References: <1047659289.2566.109.camel@sisko.scot.redhat.com> <20030314163727.GE8937@work.bitmover.com> In-Reply-To: <20030314163727.GE8937@work.bitmover.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Message-Id: <200303140856.11839.csd_ob@daudt.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2857 Lines: 54 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. - 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/