| |||||||||||||
The kernel and BitKeeper part waysThe kernel and BitKeeper part waysPosted Apr 8, 2005 16:36 UTC (Fri) by bronson (subscriber, #4806)In reply to: The kernel and BitKeeper part ways by daniel Parent article: The kernel and BitKeeper part ways
So the ends justify the means? Careful, Daniel... If you're right, then the GPL is toast. So it's a good thing you're wrong. (and quite hypocritical it would appear...)
(Log in to post comments)
The kernel and BitKeeper part ways Posted Apr 8, 2005 17:07 UTC (Fri) by daniel (subscriber, #3181) [Link] "So the ends justify the means? Careful, Daniel... If you're right, then the GPL is toast."
Don't be disingenuous. There is nothing wrong with the "means" here. Reverse engineering is perfectly legal.
"So it's a good thing you're wrong."
According to you.
"(and quite hypocritical it would appear...)"
I resent that.
The kernel and BitKeeper part ways Posted Apr 8, 2005 23:26 UTC (Fri) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] Oh, I thought you were explaining why breaking bk's license agreement is justified. Typically, if a clause in a contract is illegal, the entire contract is void and must be renegotiated. I haven't read BK's license (who can keep up with the changes?) so don't know if they included language to change this. The point is, if you agree to a license, it's a bad idea to turn right around and knowingly break parts of it.
If you're ONLY justifying reverse engineering then that's OK and I take back the hypocritical stab. :)
The kernel and BitKeeper part ways Posted Apr 9, 2005 9:29 UTC (Sat) by daniel (subscriber, #3181) [Link] The point is, if you agree to a license, it's a bad idea to turn right around and knowingly break parts of it.How do you know whoever it was agreed to the license?
The kernel and BitKeeper part ways Posted Apr 10, 2005 2:09 UTC (Sun) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] Because that's the only legal way to have a copy of the software.
I suppose it's possible that you could sniff the wire while a properly licensed copy did transactions over it but that's starting to get real shaky...
The kernel and BitKeeper part ways Posted Apr 10, 2005 2:40 UTC (Sun) by daniel (subscriber, #3181) [Link] Because that's the only legal way to have a copy of the software. I suppose it's possible that you could sniff the wire while a properly licensed copy did transactions over it but that's starting to get real shaky...How do you know that the engineer did not just connect to a BitKeeper repository and try to make it talk by pure trial and error?
The kernel and BitKeeper part ways Posted Apr 13, 2005 8:38 UTC (Wed) by njhurst (guest, #6022) [Link] Particularly if that someone has a history of reverse engineering things from the outside (samba, tivo etc). I spent a little time working with tridge a long time ago and he's neither vindictive/zealotous nor is he naive when it comes to licences. I have no trouble believing him capable of doing what he did without touching the client, and I don't imagine him willingly using bitkeeper with the knowledge of the licence.
The kernel and BitKeeper part ways Posted Apr 17, 2005 17:57 UTC (Sun) by alext (guest, #7589) [Link] More recent reports show he (Tridge) didn't use BK in his reverse engineering and did not accept the license (no need as he wasn't installing or using BK) and the reports go on to point out that he is doing exactly what he did for Samba (for which he is celebrated like a hero).
|
|||||||||||||