Slashdot Mirror
Interview With BitKeeper Author Larry McVoy
Jeremy Andrews writes "KernelTrap has spoken with Larry McVoy, BitMover founder and primary BitKeeper author. BitKeeper, a distributed source control system, has been adopted by Linux kernel creator Linus Torvalds and condemned by free software icon Richard Stallman.
In this interview, Larry looks back through the years, describing his exposure to computers and Linux. He also discusses the history of BitKeeper, from writing NSElite for Sun (which turned into their still used SCM, Teamware), to his desire to keep Linus from burning out, to the present day solution. The choice to not license BitKeeper under the GPL is also explained.
Larry discusses much beyond Bitkeeper as well, exploring some of his other interests. Find the full interview on KernelTrap."
Stallman can't get over the fact that Bitkeeper is NOT licensed under the GPL, and that Linus chooses to use it anyway. Presumably Linus just likes it better, and he's free to do as he sees fit. Freedom, that's an interesting word, because the mere notion of it means it must apply equally and unilaterally to everyone, or it doesn't exist. Stallman has repeatedly tried to exert pressure on people including McVoy to license things under *his* GPL, and complaining loudly when it doesn't happen. In other words Stallman is making an effort to limit their freedom with their own product.
Freedom applies to everyone, or it applies to no one.
What RMS actually said was:
That's a very profound statement. It's easy to sneer at it, to dismiss it ad hominem. But he raises important points which deserve to be addressed in depth.
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
The system is no longer GNU + Linux kernel. If it's about giving credit in proportional amounts, then X, perl, Berkeley, Apache, Netscape, and many other major contributors should also be recognized.
I do understand that some of these can be stripped away without impairing the OS, but some of them cannot.
While calling the whole ball of wax "Linux" may be overstating the importance of the kernel, calling it GNU/Linux understates the importances of all the other contributions.
"Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus handicapped." --Elbert Hubbard (1856-1915)
So pay up and quit whining about it.
You're getting something for free, nothing, nada, zip that someone else has spent time and effort on, why are people not appreciative of this fact any more?
You don't go whinging about a free beer your mate gives you do you? And yes, even that beer will come with conditions (like you're supposed to drink it with him).
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
In reference to the FSF, RMS says:
We have no non-free systems or applications on them now, and our principles say we must keep it that way.
So is this to say that their motherboard BIOS and all supporting microcontroller code, EPROMs, firmware and controller code in their video cards, ethernet cards, etc. all comes with source code?! Impressive. Where do they shop?
Best has a context associated with it. RMS believes that best is always free as in GPL'd. Anything else, to him, is inferior.
Linus himself was quoted as saying "Making Linux GPL'd was definitely the best thing I ever did. "
I'm concerned about what I see as extreme pragmatism on Linus' part. Surely, better software, in terms of features and useability, isn't the only criteria for determining it's selection. Price is obviously a major criterion with such internet-developed projects as the Linux Kernel.
As far as I can tell, the BitKeeper license doesn't insure that future versions, perhaps even versions necessary to run on future OS releases, will still be free of charge and without source, we can't be sure that we could make it work on those releases.
Maybe this is just paranoia and there's really nothing to worry about, or maybe not.
RMS is insistent and consistent. Somebody has to be.
I like Barry Goldwater's statement "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice." To RMS this is about liberty and he doesn't compromise.
It seems to me that there are two choices: The GPL is adopted for purely pragmatic reasons because we can outcompete closed source development. The other is that the GPL is adopted as a principled position.
If we take the first position, then will we stop using Linux the moment something better comes along in terms of features, useability and stability? After all, the existence of BitKeeper proves that, at least in some contexts, that closed source development is superior to Open Source Development models. Doesn't it?
Let me ask you. Should we adopt MicroSoft software if it offers better features and useability? Or... are there other concerns than the narrow "best tool for the job" consideration?