[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] BK sync ?
From: |
Paul Hedderly |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] BK sync ? |
Date: |
Wed, 17 Sep 2003 15:21:18 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.3.28i |
On Wed, Sep 17, 2003 at 03:46:41PM +0200, Karel Gardas wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Sep 2003, Alexander Deruwe wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Sep 17, 2003 at 03:29:14PM +0200, Karel Gardas wrote:
> > > On Wed, 17 Sep 2003, Alexander Deruwe wrote:
> > > > This is the relevant clause:
> > > >
> > > > (d) 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 capabil-
> > > > ities of the BitKeeper Software, or, in the reason-
> > > > able opinion of BitMover, competes with the BitKeeper
> > > > Software.
> > >
> > > I'm afraid that by "develop" there is also mean developing any addition to
> > > tla. So IMHO any development of direct (vide below) bk2arch is prohibited.
> >
> > Hrm, yeah, and bk2arch would almost certainly be classed as 'competing
> > product'.
>
> Very competing - I would even say that one of the biggest competitor are
> "migration tools" to competitor technology :-)
Sod. That's a good point :O)
--
Paul
- [Gnu-arch-users] BK sync ?, Paul Hedderly, 2003/09/17
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] BK sync ?, Samium Gromoff, 2003/09/17
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: BK sync ?, Stig Brautaset, 2003/09/17
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: BK sync ?, Samium Gromoff, 2003/09/17
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: BK sync ?, Alexander Deruwe, 2003/09/17
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: BK sync ?, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2003/09/17
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: BK sync ?, Tom Lord, 2003/09/18
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: BK sync ?, Karel Gardas, 2003/09/17
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: BK sync ?, Bruce Stephens, 2003/09/17