From: John Bradford <john@grabjohn.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, robro@frink.nuigalway.ie
Subject: Re: BK Licence: Protocols and Research
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 15:17:49 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200307171417.h6HEHn85002476@81-2-122-30.bradfords.org.uk> (raw)
> * 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).
1. Flamewars about BitKeeper tend to generate a lot of traffic.
2. vger.kernel.org has run out of /var/tmp space twice recently, which
has caused list traffic to get lost.
_Please_ take this off LKML.
John.
next reply other threads:[~2003-07-17 13:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-07-17 14:17 John Bradford [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2003-07-17 12:05 BK Licence: Protocols and Research 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
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
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=200307171417.h6HEHn85002476@81-2-122-30.bradfords.org.uk \
--to=john@grabjohn.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=robro@frink.nuigalway.ie \
/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
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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).