[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] grokking arch
From: |
Tom Lord |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] grokking arch |
Date: |
Wed, 24 Mar 2004 18:23:21 -0800 (PST) |
> From: Robin Green <address@hidden>
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 05:16:25PM -0800, Tom Lord wrote:
> > BTW, you mentioned that your presentation of this was thwarted because
> > of some BK licensing issue. Are we to infer from this that BK is
> > used internally at RH?
> Funny, I would have thought that in that case the BitKeeper license could
> _at most_ prohibit contributing slides such as these to the arch project
> (including presumably this mailing list), rather than prohibit using the
> slides internally.
> How can Bitmover restrict you from talking about alternatives to Bitkeeper
> *internally*?
> I'm obviously misunderstanding what's going on here...
Seconded. Other than the general level of paranoia that LM's
attitude may have induced.
-t
- [Gnu-arch-users] grokking arch, Colin Walters, 2004/03/24
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] grokking arch, Matthew Dempsky, 2004/03/24
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: grokking arch, Miles Bader, 2004/03/24
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: grokking arch, Tom Lord, 2004/03/24
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: grokking arch, Matthew Dempsky, 2004/03/24
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: grokking arch, Stefan Monnier, 2004/03/25
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: grokking arch, Charles Duffy, 2004/03/25
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: grokking arch, Stefan Monnier, 2004/03/25