Re: New BK License Problem?

["Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <gilbertd@treblig.org>]

* Larry McVoy (lm@bitmover.com) wrote:

> We're not changing the wording in the license just because you have a
> problem with it.  Unless some lawyer wants to explain to me why this
> wording doesn't do what I want it to do, and unless I actually believe
> they are operating in the best interests of BitMover, the language
> stands as it is.  

Just to be clear; does that term in the license affect a company, or its
employees, that is a competitor of yours if they use bitkeeper in a way
unrelated to the competition aspect?

So for example is an employee of a competitor or the competitor itself allowed
to download the linux kernel source using bitkeeper?

Lets take that previous question and split it into 2:
   a) If they use the kernel source for something irrelevent to the
	 competing product.

	 b) If they use the kernel source for something relevent to the
	 competing product (e.g. if they were to take the kernel and produce a
	 proprietary module for accessing their system, or even just just use
	 the kernel on the server they happen to store their products source
	 on).

I'd definitly find it objectionable if (a) came under the license
conditions and a bit disturbing for (b).

Anyway, wouldn't you be flattered if a competitor decided to use
bitkeeper to store their code in?

Dave
 ---------------- Have a happy GNU millennium! ----------------------   
/ Dr. David Alan Gilbert    | Running GNU/Linux on Alpha,68K| Happy  \ 
\ gro.gilbert @ treblig.org | MIPS,x86,ARM, SPARC and HP-PA | In Hex /
 \ _________________________|_____ http://www.treblig.org   |_______/