Slashdot Mirror
RMS Weighs In On BitKeeper
An anonymous reader writes ". . . and boy, is he pissed! The BitKeeper license, he told the Linux kernel mailing list, is 'the whip hand' of proprietary software. His brief but pungent comment is carried by Linux and Main."
That is because he was talking about the Linux kernel... NOT the GNU/Linux system.
a ^= b; b ^= a; a ^= b;
Maybe post-1.0 they'll offer features that would bring it up to the level of bitkeeper, but right now, that isn't their main goal.
You're a suburbanite.
Actually, if you read the article, it says that the FREE version of BitKeeper cannot be used to work on its competition. i.e. You cannot use the FREE version of BitKeeper to develop CVS. HOWEVER, one can BUY a license from BitKeeper to do just that.
Here's a handful of links to kernel archive mirrors discussing subversion. There current attitude of kernel developers is that subversion is nowhere near mature enough to replace bk for kernel use yet. once it is, people will happily switch.
So, for the time being, live with them using BK, and know that you don't have to use it at all to help with kernel development.
get 0wned. irc.w30wnzj00.com
http://www.uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/021
In case this get slashdotted, here is RMS' post (and I quote):
The new restrictions on Bitkeeper, saying that people who contribute
to CVS or Subversion and even companies that distribute them cannot
even run Bitkeeper, have sparked outrage. While these specific
restrictions are new, their spirit fits perfectly with the previous
Bitkeeper license.
The spirit of the Bitkeeper license is the spirit of the whip hand.
It is the spirit that says, "You have no right to use Bitkeeper, only
temporary privileges that we can revoke. Be grateful that we allow
you to use Bitkeeper. Be grateful, and don't do anything we dislike,
or we may revoke those privileges." It is the spirit of proprietary
software. Every non-free license is designed to control the users
more or less. Outrage at this spirit is the reason for the free
software movement. (By contrast, the open source movement prefers to
play down this same outrage.)
If the latest outrage brings the spirit of the non-free Bitkeeper
license into clear view, perhaps that will be enough to convince the
developers of Linux to stop using Bitkeeper for Linux development.
- Vincit qui patitur.
> Did you mean, a "Brave GNU World"? I'm sorry Mr. Huxley, but it's just so appropriate.
GNU's monthly e-zine is, in fact, named Brave GNU World
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
> GNU Hurd is being developed with CVS.
It's being developed?
> BSD is.
They gave up on the client end and created cvsup for distribution instead (which was meant to replace sup, but turns out to beat cvs in terms of reliability). Many private branches use Perforce
> To me, the real question is: what is going wrong with Linux kernel development that CVS is not sufficient?
Why don't you ask Linus? He's tired of answering, but now and then, he will give you a *big* rant on what he hates about CVS. Let's start with the fact that you can't even rename a file in CVS without losing its history. Or the fact that you can't make one changeset (in CVS terms, a tag) depend on another. Or that you can't even back out individual changesets -- history in CVS is entirely linear when going backward. The reason this worked for Linux before was because Linus did it all by hand, and now he's tired of it.
But seriously, don't take it from me, ask Linus.
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.