From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S271968AbTGRVUG (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Jul 2003 17:20:06 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S271820AbTGRVQs (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Jul 2003 17:16:48 -0400 Received: from CPE-65-29-18-15.mn.rr.com ([65.29.18.15]:48260 "EHLO www.enodev.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S270379AbTGRVN4 (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Jul 2003 17:13:56 -0400 Subject: RE: Bitkeeper From: Shawn To: David Schwartz Cc: Larry McVoy , Richard Stallman , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <1058563726.9585.65.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.3 Date: 18 Jul 2003 16:28:47 -0500 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Maybe you're right, but to the point of the conversation, 'taint worth it to fight it. The worst thing anyone can do is go off half cocked, make a challenge, and *poof*, the protocol gateways disappear, because now Larry is spending his time & $$ with the lawsuit, and takes down the protocol gateways. So, in essence, I say pick the battles that are worth fighting, and then only the battles that are worth winning. On Fri, 2003-07-18 at 16:08, David Schwartz wrote: > > Our license states that you can't use BK if you are developing a similar > > system, i.e., a clone. Without using BK it's impossible to reverse > > engineer BK to create the clone. So your message seems to be saying > > "it would be appropriate at this point to violate the BitKeeper license > > in order to write a free client which talks with BitKeeper". > > > Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com > > My understanding of the relevant case law in the United States is that > these types of restrictions are not allowed under copyright law itself. > They've only been upheld when they're part of a sale contract. You can > certainly argue that a click to an 'I Agree' link constitutes acceptance of > a sale contract. But if someone sits down at a friend's computer that > happens to have BK on it, or finds a copy of BK on a CD someone left at the > lab, you would have a hard time arguing that they agreed to this contract. > > See, for example, ProCD v. Zeidenberg: > > "Copyright law forbids duplication, public performance, and so on, unless > the person wishing to copy or perform the work gets permission; silence > means a ban on copying. A copyright is a right against the world. Contracts, > by contrast, generally affect only their parties; strangers may do as they > please, so contracts do not create "exclusive rights." Someone who found a > copy of SelectPhone(TM) on the street would not be affected by the > shrinkwrap license - though the federal copyright laws of their own force > would limit the finder's ability to copy or transmit the application > program." > > IANAL, and in any event, I don't think any court would look fondly on > someone who deliberately contrived a method to claim they're not subject to > the license. > > DS