Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263500AbUJ2T5z (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Oct 2004 15:57:55 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263487AbUJ2Tx6 (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Oct 2004 15:53:58 -0400 Received: from ipcop.bitmover.com ([192.132.92.15]:1452 "EHLO work.bitmover.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261446AbUJ2Tjl (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Oct 2004 15:39:41 -0400 Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 12:39:24 -0700 From: Larry McVoy To: Ram?n Rey Vicente Cc: Scott Lockwood , Larry McVoy , Xavier Bestel , James Bruce , Linus Torvalds , Roman Zippel , Andrea Arcangeli , Linux Kernel Subject: Re: BK kernel workflow Message-ID: <20041029193924.GA10216@work.bitmover.com> Mail-Followup-To: Larry McVoy , Ram?n Rey Vicente , Scott Lockwood , Larry McVoy , Xavier Bestel , James Bruce , Linus Torvalds , Roman Zippel , Andrea Arcangeli , Linux Kernel References: <4180B9E9.3070801@andrew.cmu.edu> <20041028135348.GA18099@work.bitmover.com> <1098972379.3109.24.camel@gonzales> <20041028151004.GA3934@work.bitmover.com> <41827B89.4070809@hispalinux.es> <20041029173642.GA5318@work.bitmover.com> <41828707.3050803@hispalinux.es> <57875.65.208.227.246.1099074830.squirrel@www.lrsehosting.com> <4182923D.5040500@hispalinux.es> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4182923D.5040500@hispalinux.es> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3780 Lines: 68 On Fri, Oct 29, 2004 at 08:55:57PM +0200, Ram?n Rey Vicente wrote: > Scott Lockwood wrote: > | In what way is that improper? Just because you think so, or do you have > | something you can cite in the spanish legal system that forbids this sort > | of exchange of rights for a licsense? > > Improper in the way of misusing the legal system. This is not getting us anywhere. You're not citing case law, you're citing vague statements that don't apply here. And even if they do apply, the law is a moving target, new case law changes the rules all the time. Who's to say that we don't have a lawsuit in Spain and and get new case law put in place that says you don't have such and such a right unless you pay for the product? Who's to say someone else doesn't do that? It's a moving target. It's worth thinking this through a little. One view of law is that it is the process of writing down what society thinks is reasonable. A good example is the interoperability thing, lots of places have said "if you lock up my data then I have the right to dig it out regardless of your license" or words to that effect. That's reasonable. On the other hand, if you have a program that does not lock up the data, does not impede your ability to get your work done, is it reasonable for you to go digging around in that product for the purposes of creating a clone? Maybe, if the license doesn't prohibit that. Is it reasonable for a license to prohibit that? I think so and so does BitMover's legal counsel and so does outside counsel who are experts in contract and copyright law. Are we right? Dunno. Maybe we go to court and find out. Maybe we go to court and make new case law. The bottom line is that we are trying to be reasonable, we are trying to provide a service and protect our investment at the same time, and we are secure in the knowledge that we could make a very strong case that we are good guys, doing a good thing for you, and we're reasonable. What that means is that if it comes down to a legal battle, even a legal battle where the current law comes down on your side, we may create new case law which says "well, yeah, but you didn't pay for it and when we talked about all that stuff you referenced we really meant in the context of a paid for product". It's a matter of how things are interpreted and things get reinterpreted all the time in situations such as this. The side that will win will be the side which is both reasonable and has enough money to present that case. We think that's us. How reasonable are you going to look when the only reason you have for doing what you are doing is to steal our technology? Remember, you are doing this to a program that was given to you for free under the agreement that you would not do this. Whether the law currently distinguishes between paying or free, do you really think you can go before a jury and win a case where you are violating the terms of a license for a product for which you paid nothing and for the sole purpose of creating a competing product? If you do, go for it. All I can say is I wouldn't do that if I were you. It doesn't look reasonable to me and I'll bet you long odds that it won't look reasonable to a jury. I'm quite willing to go to court and test this out, by the way, we've set aside money for legal fees in case we need to do this. It would be nice to have some case law which clarified this one way or the other. -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitkeeper.com - 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/