Re: Is the BitKeeper network protocol documented?

From: Larry McVoy (
Date: Wed Jan 22 2003 - 10:38:22 EST

On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 10:27:40AM -0500, Dana Lacoste wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-01-22 at 10:18, Larry McVoy wrote:
> > A boundary is a boundary. It doesn't matter how much you want or need
> > what is on the other side of that boundary, you don't get to make your
> > license cross that boundary, the law doesn't work that way.
> Thus the concept of "derivative work."

Derivative works don't get to cross boundaries. A boundary is a trump
card, it's like a patent, it has strength. Go dig into the legal
findings in this area. My memory is that anything you can pull out and
replace with another implementation constitutes a boundary and you may
have different licenses on either side of that boundary without fear of
them fighting. So a derivative work which can't be easily replaced
doesn't get to have a different license than the basis. On the other
hand, something which plugs into an interface, like a driver or a
file system, could have a different license.

Larry McVoy            	 lm at  
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 23 2003 - 22:00:29 EST