Slashdot Mirror
BitKeeper EULA Forbids Working On Competition
Col. Klink (retired) writes "BitKeeper's new EULA forbids working on the competition. Larry McVoy has told Ben Collins that he can't use BK because he works on subversion (a free revision control program). In fact, you can't use BitKeeper if you OR your company have anything to do with competing software. Free Software advocates who were upset when Linus decided to use non-Free software now have the opportunity to say 'I told you so.'"
Note that only the use of Bitkeeper for free is affected by this clause. It still seems like this was a bait-and-switch maneuver on the part of BitKeeper, also there seems to be some personal animosity with the Subversion crew.
Subversion isn't quite up to par, yet, but it does seem like the switch to 2.6/3.0 "soon" would be a good time to switch revision control systems to something less... counter productive.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo.
Forgive me if I'm stupid, but doesn't an EULA say what you can and can't do with respect to the product that the EULA covers? Reverse engineering and stuff like that are, grudgingly, acceptable terms of an EULA, but saying you can't do something that is not directly related to the software program covered by the EULA seems a tad on the side of illegality.
I have a feeling that if anyone challenged the agreement, the law would force it to change. Granted you have to accept the EULA in order to use the software...but if I made a EULA that said you were no longer allowed to own a firearm if you used my product, it would be tossed to the wind in a second. In a sense, Bitmover's EULA infringes on my right to compete, yes/no? If Bitmover doesn't want people to use an idea they have, they should file a patent for that idea, or otherwise rely on copyright/trademark law to prevent people from "stealing."
The Right Reverend K. Reid Wightman,
Many slashdot posters seem to think Richard is just a voice crying out in the wilderness, but increasingly he seems to be a prophet.
Many years before this happened Richard pointed out the flaws of relying on non free software. Will any of the slashdot posters who called him crazy then apologize now?
Linus is wrong and Richard was right. You can't be "pragmatic" and use the best tool for the job if you want to keep your freedom.
Put yourself in their shoes.
Would it sit well with you as a kernel developer if, for instance, microsoft was using linux as their development platform for their next OS?
What if you knew that they were using it in production with in house changes and additions with out releasing source code?
This is where BitMover is sitting. Developers are using their software to assist in developing their competition and doing it in violation of their licensing agreement.
BitMover is just doing what we would do if the shoe was on the other foot. This issue will be solved in the same way the open source community always deals with challenges.
The open source community will produce a better alternative under the GPL without using their software. Just like Windows is not the developer enviroment for the kernel, BitKeeper will not be the revision control software used for Subversion.
If voting were effective, it would be illegal by now.
"You can't be "pragmatic" and use the best tool for the job if you want to keep your freedom."
You can, but non-free software can't be the best tool for the job.
This guy is giving away a free version of his software to help kernel developers and now you double standard hypocrites actually whine that he does not like this free version to be used by his competition?
Be grateful that he gave you this software in the first place!
The subversion guy should be talking to his customers and find out what they want instead of using Bitkeeper to copy. Respect must be earned, not copied.
Nothing, but that doesn't make your point. To determine if the claim is true you need to compare both licenses for both versions. The license on the $0 version might differ from the other version.
Of course none of this matters if you recognize that Linus Torvalds is arguing a rather selfish point--one should use the programs that get the job done, proprietary or Free Software (or anything in between). No regard is given for the ethical and larger social ramifications of our choices; we are being asked by Torvalds to consider only our own desires. I encourage you all to consider your software freedom and recognize that the practical benefits of better programs and a better society where we can share freely come (in part) from the freedoms and attention paid to ethics found in the Free Software movement.
Digital Citizen
So many people here are getting all upset because BitKeeper is not free. Well, there's nothing wrong with trying to make money off of some software, while helping the community at the same time.
No business in their right mind is going to help a competetor take their market share. Maybe BitKeeper can't help if Subversion takes that market on its own, but they are not going to help them do it.
Disclaimer: I have a huge interest in Subversion, and I've been contributing to their mailing list for almost a year. I love Subversion. But I still implore all you Slashdot hippies: do not assume that all non-free software is evil, and do not make BitKeeper the bad guy just because they want to make money.
Free software depends on a few companies' ability to actually make money developing and using free software. Without industry support, free software will never make it past a select few geeks' basement computers. If you like free software, then you should support BitKeeper's decision. BitKeeper has helped the FS community in the past, and their support for the kernel project has been wonderful. Support them, help the FS industry grow, and everyone benefits.
If anyone bothers on read the whole thread (ha!), they'll find that this only affects the free use of BK.
Larry's main concern is that someone who wants to implement a competing version control system does not use a free version of BK to do so. He is not attempting to prevent the subversion people from using bitkeeper; he just doesn't want them using it for free.
Before people start jumping up and down and screaming "antitrust", let me just state again that he is simply insisting that people who work on competing products but BK, rather than using it for free. He is by no means restricting anyone's trade.
Furthermore, BK is not required to checkout source code from a BK repository -- SCCS suffices, and Rik van Riel, Jeff Garzik and others make snapshots available every couple of hours.
The long and short is that nobody need use bitkeeper for kernel development (the source code may be obtained in a timely fashion using existing tools). If you don't like the BK license, don't use BK!
Larry has a responsibility to BitMover and its employees. He has salaries to pay, and making it easier for competitors to duplicate BK does not make that any easier. By providing BK and bkbits.net for free, he is doing the kernel community a service -- how about we cut him some slack?
you made a lot of good points until the small projects with a small number of people bit. that's crap. free and open bsd use cvs for one thing; they are not small.
cvs works for developers with a clue about cvs. that's not to say that a better version control system couldn't be developed - one can and should. but saying cvs is crap for large projects is demonstrably false.
US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
Anybody used it for a big project?
'So many people here are getting all upset because BitKeeper is not free'
No, I am upset because it is used to develop Linux (which is free) and because is the only non free tool used to do it.
I think Linus is wrong on this, because by using it, in a way, he is forcing it upon other people involved in kernel development.
If BK where used to develop windows I wouldn't have any problem with it.
When his defense asked, "Which computer has Jon Johansen trespassed upon?" the answer was: "His own."
Free software depends on a few companies' ability to actually make money developing and using free software.
Ya, and commercial software relies on free software to keep it honest enough that computers can actually remain a useful tool to the human race...
We all need each other, lets have a group hug.
P.S - I don't think most of the point is that bitkeeper is bad, just that it was a bad idea for the kernel to rely so heavily on a commercial product in the first place. From some posts, it even sounds like the development team could have licenses to bitkeeper that wouldn't limit what they can work on if they're ready to shell out the bucks...
Then you should really consider starting a "free the source" fund to collect enough money for the required number of licenses needed to work on subversion.
-- Many men would appreciate a woman's mind more if they could fondle it
I'd agree with your perspective concerning Bitkeepers IP rights if this was the only way this clause is used in a shrink-wrap license. However, it is more often used in court in a semi-fraudulent manner. More often than not, Bitkeeper could claim that a developer was "contaminated", and unless it was *very carefully* documented otherwise, with the sort of documentation rarely available in an open-source project, it can shut down the competitition. I'd hate to think that Bitkeeper's lawyers would do something so cynical, but its a common practice with this sort of contract. About the only remedy is to start the entire project over from scratch and work in "double-clean" rooms, but that's practically impossible in an open source project.
Kudos to Bitkeeper's lawyers for proving that fascism is alive and well in the commercial software industry when it comes to competing with open source projects. Until they drop this clause open-source developers should boycott their tools, because doing otherwise is too great a risk. Maybe they'll get the message, if not, Bitkeeper will go the way of gopher, another product which got a license like this and was dropped like a hot potato by developers in favor of www, and of course the competition ended up being better. :-)
What's the short version?
A) The license forbids you to use BK to further a direct competitor to BK. Distributing a competitor, while using BK, like Red Hat does, is allowed.
B) This license is the FREE license. Remember the saying, "Beggars can't be choosers?" They can't. Are you using BK for free? Then you can't expect to choose the license. If you buy the program, you can develop whatever you like with it.
C) Anyone still has the ability to be a kernel hacker without using BK whatsoever. The old tools still work, Linus and everyone else still accepts standard patches. It's just the old tools are actually worse than BK. BK was chosen purely on technical merits, it's only the license that's raising questions.
Point B) is important. Because this is the FREE license, it means that BM is not violating anti-trust laws by forbidding competition, because you can purchase the product, and get unrestricted use. Companies are not required to provide free samples of their products to competitors to help them out. Also, it means that BM is NOT acting like MS when they pulled the same stunt in their EULA. (Adding a clause stating that you cannot use MS products to harm MS in any way).
Summary: Bit Mover is acting reasonably, and completely within their rights as a company to define the acceptable uses of their free gift to users. The issue should is not whether or not Bit Mover is 'cheating' people. The issue now is whether or not to use Bit Keeper personally.
why should a company develop a piece of software, and give a limited (???) version away for free in hopes of people paying for the full version, only to allow people to use the free version to create competing software?
Except the incident in question doesn't involve using the free(beer) version of bitkeeper to work on a replacement. It involves somebody who works two jobs: in one job, he uses free(beer) bitkeeper; in the other, he works on a replacement. The EULA crosses that separation of jobs by restricting the person, not the use of the software.
Will I retire or break 10K?
You need to understand that it is exactly this issue that causes a lot of the problems. It is really worth reading all of the talk transcript from the guy who is going to debate the RIAA VP next week. It is exactly because of the desire to extract every dime available under the utility curve that leads to the desire to create non-transferable licensing (restrict right of first sale) and a host of other evils that almost everyone objects to.
How awful is it if you actually PAID MONEY for the software? Face it, if your boss doesn't have bucks, you don't have a job. Somebody's paying for the Linux kernel to be developed - if it costs 1% more, is that a big deal?
It isn't that simple. If a commercial tool is needed to participate, it limits the scope. Not everyone working on any given free source project is getting paid. Ok, so you can grab bitkeeper for free to work on the Linux kernel, that's sort of ok, but now they say you can't work on some projects if you do that. Sort of silly if you ask me, since it just gives them (BitMover) a black eye in the community and it won't slow down the development of the free alternative. It is, in fact, pretty easy to argue the opposite based on discussion of the issue here. Lots of people who were on the fence for this issue are going to move away from their product.
The transcript that I linked above makes the point that we don't actually know if BitMover is hurting or helping themselves. If they just GPLed their tool, and charged for support, commercial licenses, and other stuff, they might do better in the long run. It is a leap of faith, but you gotta ask how much the change of EULA language will hurt them in the long run. It will encourage more people to push the free alternative, and work to make that tool competetive. If it was GPLed, they would have the whole community behind them, and a lot of people would buy their books and support in gratitute for the gift of their software.
These issues are even more stark if you want to work on free hardware. The free tools are in a primitive state, so you are in a bind of choosing a less desirable tool vs something free. The producers of the commercial tools are afraid of their business drying up, so they won't do anything if it might help the free tools compete with them. You say, ok, so I'll find a tool I can use for free on free hardware even if it is closed source, but that slows down the free alternatives.
This is where you start to get just how important GPL is and why it is such an important innovation. One of the big problems in the sub-chip level hardware design is that the big tool makers have everything locked up and they don't talk to each other very well.
There are some open standards, but the whole mentality of closed intellectual property creates this situation where the best minds are all working to recreate the same tools and chip functions in each closed universe. This is even worse than it is for software because there aren't nearly as many people working in hardware as with software, and it is getting more complex just as fast.
My gut tells me that any company that makes the leap of faith and frees their intellectual property under GPL or similar terms will get back much more than they give up. It's hard, if not impossible to prove this, but instictively we know this when we look deeply at the issues.
On a side note, RMS doesn't think that the GPL is appropriate for hardware. It's bits all the way down until you start replicating the physical parts, and unlike software, it isn't possible to actually use it until you physically replicate it.
Nothing stops me from downloading the ISO images of RedHat's latest release cutting as many one-offs as I want on my CDR, or even making a run of CDs, and cutting them out of the loop completely. I can even offer my own support services to compete with RH. Doing this with chip or board level fabrication has considerably higher entry barriers, so potential "Red Hat Hardware" vendors would have less to worry about.
As long as I've come this far, I want to finish with a comment about the LGPL. From where I stand, RMS's stance on the LGPL is a take-back that is just as damaging, if not more so, as the EULA change being discussed. LGPL gives you a lot more choice in terms of integrating free and proprietary subsystems and components. Where free libraries have significantly extended functionality, he explicitly recomends GPL over LGPL. As an example if you want all the GNU goodies that make command line work so nice in bash, you have to either write your own or be ready to release your entire project under GPL. I might even agree with his goal of all software being free, but my choice is limited. What if I'm doing this work for an employer who is not ready to release the whole thing? I can't choose GPL, but I could choose LGPL.
This is the one case where I would claim that it goes beyond style, and the message itself actually hurts the movement.
One question: if you're making some kind of version controll system, why whould you use BK to develop it? Once it's working, wouldn't you use itself? Before it's working well enough, just do it by hand or with CVS or something.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
"No business in their right mind is going to help a competetor take their market share."
And that's how it starts. "We're gonna make sure they don't mess with us. Our product is better, and this change just ensures they won't catch up"
Then it's "Customers are trying to migrate to their product. Why should we make that easy? Lock them in, make sure they have to throw away code if they don't want to keep paying"
And finally "If you see a customer has their stuff, insist it be removed already. Threaten to eliminate their discounts, talk about lawsuits, go over and personally rip out the power cord. I don't care, and I don't want to hear about it"
BK hasn't begun making its way down the slippery slope yet, but honestly I can't see a way it can avoid it. Once a company starts complaining about how people use its products it's stopped thinking like a business and started thinking like the mob. See also the music & movie industries.
This, my friends, is the fallacy commonly known as "appeal to autority". Tell your family and colleagues! It's fun.
Sorry to those who buz talk about "beggars cannot be choosers". The philosophy of Open Source and Free Software is not about begging and getting for gratis. It is an exchange, someone offers a service and ethically I have a duty to offer some feedback. It worked very well while we were a few tens of thousands. Today the masses came in and we have lots of seemingly "beggars" around. But this is not the hear of the movement and we shall keep our efforts to show people how things really develope. The problem of having supposedly "beggars" is similar to the problem of Anonymous Cowards in /.. If we take them away, we jeopardise our ideals. "Beggars" and ACs are a side effect of a world that is not perfect and which we should fight for being a little more correct. Not marginalising the masses but bringing to them the real meaning of the Open Source, Free Software and Free Speech is the real duty we shall not ever ever forget.
Now about this blatant monopolistic and ridiculous license. I may understand a commercial interest when someone declares a agreement void because I work on something that may hinder my partner. Development, production are things that are interim to a work where I and my partners should trust each other ofr a common cause. Using or developing some product while I do the same thing "on the side" for a concurrent product, is somehow a dubious behaviour from my side.
However sell/resell? Who's the jerk that wrote this license? Who's the stupid lawyer that forgets centuries of commercial ethics and practices? Who is he to hinder my right of choice and the right of choice of my clients? Any exclusivety on distributing, selling or lending anything is a conception that immediately forces a special agreement of rights and duties between two partners, sharing a common profit. Not something that "I should do or else". This is monopolism and it is ethicaly criminal to state such things in this way. No matter I get this thing for free or under a fee, claiming that I have not a right to choose what is best for me is the worst of dictatorships ever. They hinder the very principal of market with this.
Imagine this situation. I have a market. I try to find the best product so that this market lives on. Under this agreement either I cannot test their product if I sell something similar, I am forced to stop selling it to test their stuff or I have to pay them a fee to test their product. This, I would just call blackmail. If everyone starts doing it, it would be much worse than Windows EULAs.
A lot of people seem to commenting that there's nothing wrong with BitKeeper being licensed as it is. This isn't really being argued ..
The argument is that because BitKeeper's license is as it is, that the Linux kernel developers shouldn't be using it.
This example illustrates a more general problem:
Lately we see more and more license changes for existing software, BitKeeper and various Microsoft products are only the most notable cases. License changes accompany updates and patches, or it's just a document on some website that changes.
Most Software isn't ever a `finished' product, it's subject to changes called `new version', `upgrade' or `patch'. Often the customers depend on having the latest version of a software, be it for security reasons, compatibility issues, or just part of a leasing contract for the software. The software makers use these changes in the software to change the license terms in the software. In the BitKeeper example, someone using BitKeeper in a large project probably depends on it, or it would at least cause a lot of additional work and delay the project to switch from BK to something else.
This means, that even subtle license changes may have a huge effect on anyone depending on that software, done right such a license change might even ruin someones business (imagine someone using free BK on some project competing with BK, and imagine BK had gone one step further and made their "no competition" clause mandatory on all new licenses. Done just a few months before some critical timeline this might have killed the whole project. Even so any project using BK for a competing open-source product would probably have a hard time or even falter).
To protect businesses from being at the whim of software-makers there should be some regulations in place, that only allow license changes within reasonable limits, and demand that such changes are announced some time beforehand, so the customers have time to react. Most companies protect their business by making sure that they can't be cut of from any resource they depend on, they should realize that software is just such a resource and enforce license terms that don't allow for ugly surprises due to one-sided changes. But since few companies have the leverage to change Microsofts license terms i think there's a need for legislation considering software license changes.
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
free and open bsd use cvs for one thing; they are not small.
Actually, most of the interesting, complicated, and/or highly distributed work in FreeBSD happens in Perforce. The only thing that CVS gives us that Perforce doesn't have is the ability to replicate the repository. Unfortunately, that's also 90% of the reason why haven't fully switched over to Perforce.
Cat, the other, tastier white meat.
BitKeeper, back when I used it (2-3 years ago) had some nifty features, yes -- but was prone to corrupting the repository on a regular basis. What's more, Larry deliberately changed the license so that my then-current employer was no longer in compliance. Suffice to say that more than a few people there still consider him an asshole for that.
If Red Hat is going to put money into a better version control system, I'd hope that that would be either Subversion or arch. (The author is flat broke and has no web hosting unless someone gives him some, so that link may not work; also see here and here). Arch is brilliant, functional, much more reliable than BitKeeper (at least, much more reliable than BitKeeper was when I used it)... and for someone as utterly friggin' brilliant as Tom Lord to be utterly penniless (as in, unable to buy beer, much less pay rent) is just wrong.
That's why I won't be using MONO or
I'm still looking around for a CVS replacement. I will look at Subversion but does anyone know of an FTP for Arch? The Arch site is down permenantly.
A side note: Judging from the number and flavor of posts on this and other topics that diss the GPL and Open Souce, and extoll the virtues of propriatary code and restrictive EULAs, it seems to me that the number of WinXX users are consistantly exceeding the number of Linux users on Slasdot. Anyone else notice this?
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
Is this a joke? That's apparently exactly the license on FrontPage 2002. You may not disparage Microsoft.
RIAA, MPAA, BK
I see somebody had an extra bowl of Drama Flakes for breakfast.
RIAA and MPAA want complete control over all media distribution so that they can extract monopoly rents. They eagerly manipulate public opinion, corrupt our government, and sue anybody they can.
BitKeeper has so far only tried to exercise a modicum of control over the free version of their own software, so that you don't use it to put them out of business. Plus they don't want their price list public, a pretty common thing for businesses to do.
I know this is Slashdot, but you should at least try to keep your hyperbole plausible.
In my company (Free software based) we get our investors always talking about competition and patenting the living shit out of everything we can get our hands on. They talk about NDA's, closing stuff, hiding stuff, denying access to etc.
My response has been and will always be: "What are you afraid of? Our clear objective is to do it better, keep our lead, solve customers' problems, give good service, and not sit on our asses and collect checks."
Just do it better. There are enough incompetent people in the world. We shouldn't have such a weak view of ourselves that we fear THEM, should we?
Investors don't like to hear that, but then I suppose, it's hard to keep fear from the equation.
If Bitkeeper really wants to be around they should just make sure their product is better than the competition's. If there exists someday a free software alternative that is as good, they they had better make sure they excel in the service area, that they respond quickly and promptly to their clients' needs.
If the free software alternative exceeds their closed source version, then they should switch to it. They could lay off part of their developers, save a bundle, and hire more service folks. They can then happily maintain their extraordinaryily content clients with the high level of support and care to which they have become acustomed.
It's really simple, IMHO. Your fear will end up consuming you until such a time as you end up nothing but an insane reactionary, screaming and hurling insults at your last loyal client.
Toddlers are the stormtroopers of the Lord of Entropy.
Larry's had his dirty laundry exposed here on /.
Lets go through it, shall we?
1) He looks bad in the initial article. So he's pissed.
2) Everybody points out that since he won't post his price he wants too much.
3) Subsequently, somebody posts the prices, and Larry gets his shorts in a knot.
4) Larry threatens to sue a bunch of kids.
5) Everybody laughs at Larry.
6) People start pointing out that the company is run by a bunch of incompetents.
7) Who would buy software from these guys?
8) I mean, personally, I don't care. But when I buy software, I try to buy from companies that are run by adults, but maybe if you pay that much for software, you'll accept whatever crap he throws over the fence.
My advice?
Read what Lunkhead Larry wrote and make your own decision? Whoops, didn't mean to say "Lunkhead". I'm sure Larry is doing well for somebody of his ability.
The argument that GPL code is 'better' is not persuasive if it doesn't fit in their business model. Not everyone has academic salaries or other means of support, so these are real concerns of people who support the idea of Free Source in a deep way.
Proprietary software companies are not the only employers in the world -- in fact they employ less than 10% of software developers! The rest are working for companies that do something else but need specific software for some internal purpose. The right way to address the concerns of wages for free software developers is to create a robust free software industry, but even in the meantime there is no need to make the free software movement to pander to the interests and business models of proprietary software companies by watering down licenses.
Not all those who wander are lost.