Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: arch and linux 2.7

[Paul Hedderly]

On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 09:24:33PM +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> >>>>> "Paul" == Paul Hedderly <address@hidden> writes:
> 
>     Paul> I proclaimed one fact,
> 
> "Factoid."  I see no language in the Bitkeeper License prohibiting bug
> reports and RFEs on competing SCMs.

May I quote what was said again since you've conveniently removed it.

Paul Hedderly <address@hidden> writes:
>On Tue, Oct 28, 2003 at 09:26:50PM +0100, Alexander Deruwe wrote:
>> 
>> Are Linux developers using Bitkeeper allowed to help arch evolve, even
>> by only giving insight and ideas?  Or does the Bitkeeper license not
>> allow that?
>
>That is not allowed. It appears that you can't even contribute to a
>distribution that _contains_ another SCM...

Ok maybe I was a bit strong. It depends on the form of the ideas - those
could be in descriptive language, pseudo-code or code. It also depends
on the source of the ideas, or even BitMovers perception of where the
ideas come from.


Several problems I have with bk...

1) I cannot find the licence on their website. Only:

        Free Use License The current version of this license is included
        with each release of BitKeeper and may be viewed by running:
                bk help bkl
        after installation of the product. 

   In my opinion, that's like a EULA "Here have this..."
   then later "oh by the way there are restrictions on it's use."
   Not even sure it's enforcable since the download was not hindered,
   save registering for a password, and no conditions presented...
   before I actually run the software! The traditional convention is
   that you agree terms before exchange (of goods or services etc). BM
   is being sly by pretending to give a gift, but then later presenting
   conditions.

Right, those conditions:

2)
       (d)  No  free  use  for  competitors:  Notwithstanding any other
            terms in this License, this License is not available to You
            if  You and/or your employer develop, produce, sell, and/or
            resell a product which contains substantially similar capa-
            bilities  of  the BitKeeper Software, or, in the reasonable
            opinion of BitMover, competes with the BitKeeper  Software.
   
   Debian is not strictly my employer. However it's that "in the reasonable
   opinion of BitMover" but that worries me - it seems to imply that BM
   reserve the right to change this clause to a greater or lesser extent
   at will, and they have not stated whether their reasonable opinion is
   I do or don't work for Debian. I am a Debian developer, and Debian
   have a product that contains code that BM _have_ stated competes with 
   the BitKeeper Software.

   So should I consider that I can use BK? or not?

3)
       (f)  Staying current: This license is terminated  in  the event
            there  is a new release of the BitKeeper Software which has
            associated regression tests and said regression tests would
            not  be  passed  by this version of the BitKeeper Software.
            This license is terminated in the  event  there  is  a  new
            release  of  the  BitKeeper  Software  which  contains  any
            changes to any part of the licensing  functions,  including
            but not limited to Open Logging.

    OK any 'right' to use BK, even the current version which I am
    possibly currently allowed to use.. can be terminated at any time.  Ok,
    except I might not know that my right to use has been terminated.
    And there is no promise to make sure I know so that I can not be in
    breach. Nor is there any kind of committment to let me get my data
    out of BM if such a termination should occur.

4)
       8.4.  Governing Law/Jurisdiction

       This License shall be governed by the laws of  the  US  and  the
       State of California, as applied to contracts entered into and to
       be performed in California between  California  residents.    By
       using this product, You submit to the jurisdiction of the courts
       in the Northern District of California.

    Ok. So by using BK suddenly I am subject to British law AND
    California law too? Fat chance. Ok that seems unenforceable to me,
    at which point 8.3 and 6 para 3 become valid and it seems to say
    the licence is terminated unless I 'comply with all the licencing
    restrictions'.

    So to use Bitkeeper, I appear to have to make myself subject to
    the jurisdiction of the courts in the Northern District of
    California.

Well, I have no bones to pick with McVoy. But this license is
        a) sneaky
        b) not clear
        c) far reaching
        d) unenforceable

And while I would like to help with OpenEmbedded and OpenZaurus, I don't
think I am allowed to use BK, and so can't get OE or OZ. Sigh. I'm
excluded from helping in an open source project, because they have
chosen to store their code in a closed source SCM.

>     Paul> I can't see how I said anything defamatory, or untrue.
> 
> That doesn't surprise me.

You still haven't shown me what was defamatory or untrue!

--
Paul