linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Rory Browne <robro@compsoc.nuigalway.ie>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: BK Licence: Protocols and Research
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 14:39:24 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20030717133924.GA25455@zion.nuigalway.ie> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20030717123514.GP833@suse.de>

* Sean Neakums <sneakums@zork.net> [030717 13:12]:
> [snip]
>
> I suggest you hire an attorney.

That costs lotsa money. Money I can't really afford to pay.


* Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de> [030717 13:32]:
> Then keep it away from lkml? Why does everybody think that BK
> discussions belong here?! News flash: they don't!
>
I detect a note of anger in that post. Anger leads to hate, and hate
leads to the dark side. We'd hate to see linux developers lost to the
dark side. Besides I'm usually fairly sceptical about what I hear on the
news.

* Alan Cox:
> > Would previous activity in the area of developing a product which
> > contains substantially similary features to Bitkeeper preclude users
> > from
> > using the Free Bitkeeper software?

> Hire a lawyer or talk to the company selling it. This list is definitely
> the wrong place to ask about it. 

-> Hire a lawyer: 
        See reply to Sean Neakums above.

-> Talk to Company selling it:
        Reply would almost certainly be extremely biased.

-> Wrong Place:
        Okay maybe for that small part of the message, but that small
        part was added for, and only for completeness, but I thought I
        dealt with the possibility of this being the wrong place at the
        end of my last post. Having that said thanks to you, and Sean
        for being polite in your reply.

        Talking about this to the company selling bitkeeper would almost
        certainly yield biased feedback, and here is where many people
        have cross-examined the licence from top to bottom, and who've
        investigated every little nook and crannie of the Licence(and please
        don't bother telling me you aren't lawyers).

Regards

Rory

  reply	other threads:[~2003-07-17 13:27 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2003-07-17 12:05 Rory Browne
2003-07-17 12:15 ` Sean Neakums
2003-07-17 12:28 ` Alan Cox
2003-07-17 12:35 ` Jens Axboe
2003-07-17 13:39   ` Rory Browne [this message]
2003-07-17 14:09     ` Alan Cox
2003-07-17 14:58 ` Larry McVoy
2003-07-17 21:01   ` Rory Browne
2003-07-17 21:41     ` Mike Fedyk
2003-07-17 22:01     ` Larry McVoy
2003-07-18  3:01     ` jw schultz
2003-07-22 16:56   ` Jamie Lokier
2003-07-22 20:15     ` Brian McGroarty
2003-07-22 20:23       ` Jamie Lokier
2003-07-17 14:17 John Bradford

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20030717133924.GA25455@zion.nuigalway.ie \
    --to=robro@compsoc.nuigalway.ie \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --subject='Re: BK Licence: Protocols and Research' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).