On Fri, 2003-03-14 at 16:37, Larry McVoy wrote:
> > 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.
That's a fair point, but
"Goal of this project is to create version managment system
compatible with BitKeeper"
isn't actually claiming full compatibility.
And before you say it, yes, I know that being compatible with bk
involves _much_ more than just reading its repositories.
> 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.
Absolutely. I'm not questioning your right to get inaccurate
comparisons corrected or removed. I'm just questioning whether you have
the right to demand that _all_ comparisons with BitKeeper be removed,
even when they are truthful (eg. "this project can read some
BitKeeper[tm] repositories.)
Cheers,
Stephen
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/