| |||||||||||
The kernel and BitKeeper part waysThe kernel and BitKeeper part waysPosted Apr 7, 2005 14:07 UTC (Thu) by ballombe (subscriber, #9523)Parent article: The kernel and BitKeeper part ways
> The open source client, incidentally, enables the extraction of the current version from a repository
Where is that "open source" bitkeeper client ? The 'No whine license' is not a open source license. If Bitmover was serious about it, they would have used a standard opensource license like BSD or GPL.
The 1999 link is very interesting. It show there is a pattern of difference between advertised licensing and the final license.
> If BitKeeper users were violating the license under which they received the software,
Copyright law does not allow licenses to forbid reverse engineering, so there was no license violation in the first place.
(Log in to post comments)
The kernel and BitKeeper part ways Posted Apr 7, 2005 18:27 UTC (Thu) by vmole (subscriber, #111) [Link] 1. Larry said in the LKML that the "no-whine" license was joke, and that the real license was BSD, or even public domain. I don't know if there was ever an updated tarball with a BSD license in it, though. 2. Licenses most certainly are allowed to forbid reverse engineering. What you're thinking of is that making a copy for the purpose of reverse engineering is not a violation of copyright law, which is true. See http://www.chillingeffects.org/reverse/ for an explanation and more links.
|
|||||||||||