Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263544AbUJ3FE6 (ORCPT ); Sat, 30 Oct 2004 01:04:58 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263550AbUJ3FE6 (ORCPT ); Sat, 30 Oct 2004 01:04:58 -0400 Received: from smtpout.mac.com ([17.250.248.97]:63729 "EHLO smtpout.mac.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263544AbUJ3FEy (ORCPT ); Sat, 30 Oct 2004 01:04:54 -0400 In-Reply-To: <40231.65.208.227.246.1099077274.squirrel@www.lrsehosting.com> 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> <40231.65.208.227.246.1099077274.squirrel@www.lrsehosting.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <2540F67A-2A31-11D9-857E-000393ACC76E@mac.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: James Bruce , Linux Kernel , =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ram=F3n_Rey_Vicente?= , Xavier Bestel , Linus Torvalds , Larry McVoy , Roman Zippel , Andrea Arcangeli From: Kyle Moffett Subject: Re: BK kernel workflow Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 01:04:15 -0400 To: Scott Lockwood X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3134 Lines: 74 AFAIK, much of this has been rather confused talk about the status of "IP" (Intellectual Property) in the US. I'm only familiar with US laws, so I'll only talk to them, but this may apply for other countries too. IANAL, only an informed student. The only part of this discussion that I care about is the "no contribute" clause in the BK license, that states that one may not work on other SCM systems given certain relationships to BK users. To start with, I'm going to ignore the DMCA for now, because it conflicts hundreds of pages of preexisting laws and court cases, and is currently hotly contended all over the place. In the US there are three laws that protect the rights of authors of "stuff". There is Trademark Law, which restricts usage of a brand name or image, Patent Law, which restricts usage of a method or procedure, and Copyright Law, which restricts distribution. Trademark and Patent Law do not apply to the license, because no-one here is attempting to deprive Larry of his brand name(s) and he has (to my knowledge) filed no patent on his BitKeeper algorithms. Therefore the only remaining protection which he may enjoy is Copyright protection, which restricts copying of some "product" without a license from the author (Larry). Copyright Law states that no-one may make and distribute copies of BitKeeper without a license from Larry. There may be contractual obligations or monetary payment required to _obtain_ a copy of said works, but once one has gotten said copy, they _own_ that copy. They may *NOT* reproduce and/or distribute it without a license, but that copy is theirs to do whatever they want with (Following any contract agreed to _before_ obtaining the "product"). If someone else in the company I work for obtains BK, or if the company itself obtains and uses BK, I am _not_ bound by their decisions, because I am a separate entity, and I did not agree to said terms (Assuming that this does not conflict with an employment contract). Therefore you can't assume association through business. If I download the software and store it on my HDD, I _never_ have to agree to the license before I download it, therefore I am under no license concerning its use because any license is post-purchase, and therefore not binding. To my knowledge, there has not been a single significant instance of a EULA made _after_ the point-of-sale being found binding by a court of law. There _have_ been many cases where Copyright law forbids some action of a user also forbidden in an EULA, but in no other case have they been upheld. Cheers, Kyle Moffett -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.12 GCM/CS/IT/U d- s++: a17 C++++>$ UB/L/X/*++++(+)>$ P+++(++++)>$ L++++(+++) E W++(+) N+++(++) o? K? w--- O? M++ V? PS+() PE+(-) Y+ PGP+++ t+(+++) 5 X R? tv-(--) b++++(++) DI+ D+ G e->++++$ h!*()>++$ r !y?(-) ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ - 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/