Re: Regarding BitKeeper and its price list
On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 05:16:14AM -0400, David D.W. Downey wrote:
> I see no harm in what's he's done, and
> believe that the devel list was the smart place to post it since it directly
> relates to developers.
The correct list for licensing discussions is -legal.
> From where I sit the current licensing scheme for BitKeeper can be read so
> broadly as to allow for Larry to come against the project [...]
EULA's only have any force against people and organisations that use the
software, which Debian does not. The most likely people who use BitKeeper
and might be affected by this are people working on the Linux kernel,
and there's already been the appropriate discussion on those lists.
The observant will note that bitkeeper hasn't even been packaged yet.
> If he is not able to come against the project, he surely can
> come against individual developers and their companies through their
> association with Debian under the current terms of the license snippets
> posted to this list.
For reference, in Australia, the author's "express directions or license"
aren't relevant as far as copyright goes if your purpose is "studying
the ideas behind the program and the way in which it functions". I guess
that'd assume you haven't already accepted those terms as part of a
contract when initially obtaining the software.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.''
Reply to: