Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+willy=40w.ods.org@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id <S263419AbTCNQ7b>; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 11:59:31 -0500
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S263424AbTCNQ7b>; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 11:59:31 -0500
Received: from nat-pool-rdu.redhat.com ([66.187.233.200]:10207 "EHLO
	devserv.devel.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id <S263419AbTCNQ73>; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 11:59:29 -0500
Subject: Re: Never ever use word BitKeeper if Larry does not like you
From: "Stephen C. Tweedie" <sct@redhat.com>
To: Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com>
Cc: John Jasen <jjasen@realityfailure.org>,
       Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Lars Marowsky-Bree <lmb@suse.de>,
       Pavel Machek <pavel@suse.cz>,
       Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       vojtech@suse.cz, Stephen Tweedie <sct@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <20030314163727.GE8937@work.bitmover.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0303141120240.8584-100000@bushido>
	 <1047659289.2566.109.camel@sisko.scot.redhat.com>
	 <20030314163727.GE8937@work.bitmover.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Organization: 
Message-Id: <1047661816.2566.168.camel@sisko.scot.redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 (1.2.2-3) 
Date: 14 Mar 2003 17:10:16 +0000
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1414
Lines: 39

Hi,

On Fri, 2003-03-14 at 16:37, Larry McVoy wrote:

> > 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.  

That's a fair point, but 

        "Goal of this project is to create version managment system
        compatible with BitKeeper"

isn't actually claiming full compatibility.

And before you say it, yes, I know that being compatible with bk
involves _much_ more than just reading its repositories.

> 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.  

Absolutely.  I'm not questioning your right to get inaccurate
comparisons corrected or removed.  I'm just questioning whether you have
the right to demand that _all_ comparisons with BitKeeper be removed,
even when they are truthful (eg. "this project can read some
BitKeeper[tm] repositories.)

Cheers,
 Stephen

-
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/