From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S270386AbTGRUyv (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Jul 2003 16:54:51 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S270375AbTGRUye (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Jul 2003 16:54:34 -0400 Received: from mail.webmaster.com ([216.152.64.131]:65459 "EHLO shell.webmaster.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S271852AbTGRUxi (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Jul 2003 16:53:38 -0400 From: "David Schwartz" To: "Larry McVoy" , "Richard Stallman" Cc: Subject: RE: Bitkeeper Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 14:08:32 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: <20030718204405.GA658@work.bitmover.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > 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