Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2003 01:57:48 +0200
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
To: Larry McVoy <lm@work.bitmover.com>, David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com>,
       Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com>, Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Bitkeeper
Message-ID: <20030719235748.GB1198@elf.ucw.cz>
References: <20030718204405.GA658@work.bitmover.com> <MDEHLPKNGKAHNMBLJOLKOEIFEHAA.davids@webmaster.com> <20030718222702.GC658@work.bitmover.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20030718222702.GC658@work.bitmover.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.3i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1061
Lines: 26

Hi!

> > 	My understanding of the relevant case law in the United States is that
> > these types of restrictions are not allowed under copyright law itself.
> 
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 10:23:30PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > Actually your license is simply irrelevant in most of thre world. You
> > aren't allowed to forbid reverse engineering for interoperability.
> 
>     "Judge, I want to violate this license on this product that I got
>     for free because it's not free enough".

Its not free at all.

Alan is right, that parts of licence agreement are irrelevant in
Europe, and what RMS is suggesting is perfectly legal here. Like it or
not. Don't try to make "RMS suggested something ilegal" case. Thanx,
								Pavel
-- 
When do you have a heart between your knees?
[Johanka's followup: and *two* hearts?]
-
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/