Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 15:57:34 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 15:57:34 -0500 Received: from pop.gmx.net ([213.165.65.60]:36321 "HELO mail.gmx.net") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 15:57:32 -0500 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030314205747.00cdae20@pop.gmx.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 22:12:50 +0100 To: Larry McVoy From: Mike Galbraith Subject: Re: Never ever use word BitKeeper if Larry does not like you Cc: "Stephen C. Tweedie" , John Jasen , Larry McVoy , Alan Cox , Lars Marowsky-Bree , Pavel Machek , Linux Kernel Mailing List , vojtech@suse.cz In-Reply-To: <20030314163727.GE8937@work.bitmover.com> References: <1047659289.2566.109.camel@sisko.scot.redhat.com> <1047659289.2566.109.camel@sisko.scot.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2805 Lines: 60 At 08:37 AM 3/14/2003 -0800, 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.) product? > > 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. Trivial marketing issue then. > 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. Do you really think that your customers/potential customers are that stupid? Is your marketing department so inept that they cannot compete with something which by your own words is not even _close_ to being equivalent? Remember, you have repeatedly touted the man-years of effort involved in replication of BK functionality. You are (sadly) making a complete _ass_ of yourself. If someone comes up with a functional clone of BK, that's tough shit. You don't have to help them, and you are free to hinder them in any way law permits. In closing, I must say that you aren't the only one pissing me the fsck off. I'm sick and tired of the entire thread[s]. As long as I can get at the source, I couldn't give a fsck less what Linus or anybody else likes to use. As long as tarballs exist and as long as patches hit this list, I'm a happy camper. Bah humbug, color me disappointed. I guess I need to start filtering my mail. -Mike - 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/