Linux-kernel-revision-control list (was: Re: Never ever use word BitKeeper if Larry does not like you)

[Christian Daudt]

This BitKeeper subject resurfaces every week or so and probably accounts for 
5-10% of the linux-kernel mailing list traffic. While a terribly interesting 
topic to some - it really isn't about the kernel. Could someone be so kind as 
to create a linux-kernel-bitkeeper (or linux-kernel-revision-control) mailing 
list so that these discussions (which obviously are not going away) can have 
a proper home?

 cheers,

On Friday 14 March 2003 08:37, Larry McVoy wrote:
> > > Check with your lawyers again, since Red Hat has posted in the past
> > > that 'similar' namings would be chased after. I think the example they
> > > used was 'Pink Fedora'.
> >
> > Having a product name "confusingly similar" to another one _is_ grounds
> > for trademark action.  See Lindows, Mobilix etc.  (And yes, of course,
> > it's a very subjective thing in many cases.)
> >
> > But simply comparing one product to another is not the same.
> >
> > I'd expect using a name like "BitBucket" to be much more at risk of
> > being a trademark infringement than merely claiming that a project "aims
> > to be BitKeeper compatible" or "can read BitKeeper repositories."
>
> But it can't read BK repositories in many cases.  We support compressed
> repositories, it can't read those.  We support many corner cases which
> SCCS didn't handle, it can't read those.  It can't reproduce all of the
> extensions that we have added.  In other words, saying what Pavel has
> is like BitKeeper is like saying cat is like Word because they both read
> data off of disk.
>
> That's the whole point.  If we sit back and let people think that he has
> something remotely similar to BK, it devalues BitKeeper in the mind of
> those people.  Since this is a very complex system with lots of subtle
> features, people easily get confused.  What Pavel has doesn't approach
> the functionality of CVS, let alone BitKeeper, yet he is describing it
> as a BitKeeper clone.  If we allow that, we're just shooting our brand
> name dead.
>
> It's amusing, perhaps, to relate that we have been on the other side
> of this debate in the past.  We used to have a section in our comparisons
> on ClearCase and we said that CC was no longer actively developed.  The
> Rational lawyers kicked up a fuss, their view was different.  We had
> said that because the product is basically done, it isn't rapidly evolving
> the way a young product does, it's done.  But they do port it to new
> platforms and bug fix it and their (valid) position was that it was
> actively developed.  We promptly fixed the web page, they signed off
> the existing page, no fuss, no muss.