Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Mon, 15 Dec 2003 15:08:16 -0800 | From | Tupshin Harper <> | Subject | Re: RFC - tarball/patch server in BitKeeper |
| |
Larry McVoy wrote:
>Sigh. Tupshin, everyone hates these discussions and I'm in agreement with >them. What you want to discuss isn't about kernel development, it's about >building SCM systems. There are better places to do that than here. > >If you need clarification on whether you are violating our license, consult >a lawyer. > > I'm not asking for legal advice. I'm asking for bitkeeper's position on fair usage of data. You made a claim that seems to have zero backing in the bkl. I think asking for a justification of that claim is quite reasonable. I know for a fact that I'm not violating your license, because I'm not using your software and haven't agreed to your license. The implication you made was that certain other people are violating your license by exporting changesets publicly. If that is true, then that is highly relevant to this list. kernel.org, for example would have to remove changeset information such as http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/testing/cset/
-Tupshin - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |