I didn't ignore any request about the name change; if you have seen the
README, I explicitly mention that: "all things are subject to change,
including project name, binary name, perl module namespaces, depot
spec, etc."
The point about potential confusion was taken, altough I have never used
nor even seen bitkeeper myself.
I just can't make naming stop myself from doing interesting real works.
Cheers,
CLK
On Thu, 2003-11-06 at 02:41, kfogel@collab.net wrote:
> By the way, I hate to have to do this, but it is necessary to point
> out (publicly) that I and several other developers have explicitly
> asked clkao, several times, *not* to call it SubversionKeeper, because
> that's too close to "BitKeeper", which is a trademark of BitMover Inc.
>
> To call his product SubversionKeeper implies some sort of connection;
> to some it might even falsely imply some sort of endorsement or
> approval by BitMover.
>
> I hope he changes the name. But in the event that he does not, I need
> to make it clear that the name is entirely his decision, that we have
> no control over it, and in particular that all of the CollabNet
> developers have tried to get him to change it. We will never
> distribute svk or anything related to it as long as it has this name,
> which we feel is confusingly close to BitKeeper's.
>
> Our inability to enforce BitMover's trademarks on others should not be
> taken as an endorsement of any infringements that may occur.
>
> Clear? :-)
>
> To be utterly, *completely* legally safe here: -1 on any of those
> custom props appearing in our tree until the name is changed. (Not
> the name of the prop, but the name of the software that produced them,
> that is. To store the props might be taken as an implicit endorsement
> of their source.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Nov 5 21:06:27 2003