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."
if they agree to rename it to GNU/Bitkeeper, everything will be allright. :)
Slashdot: come for the pedantry, stay for the condescension.
If RMS speaks, but nobody listens, does he make a sound?
What RMS is doing his best to ignore is that these restrictions are lifted if you (gasp!) buy a commercial license.
I realise what point he is trying to make, but I think it is unfair of him to cloud the issue like that.
(Please browse at -1 to read this comment.)
Well spoken, Rik. Until RMS can propose an alternative to BitKeeper, he's just pissing in the wind.
Of course, he has every right to piss in the wind as much as he likes.
--
pants ahoy
It seems reasonable enough that Larry would want to prohibit people from using bitkeeper to compete against bitkeeper.
However I think it is telling that the license goes a step further and disallows any person or entity who ever works on a competitor from ever using bitkeeper. So Larry is essentially helping to see that many people (Linux kernel hackers using bitkeeper) are unable to ever compete with him, even if the kernel hacking and open-source-SCM hacking are in no way related. Way to drive a wedge through the free software community.
Code something GPL that performs equal to or better than BitKeeper.
I'm not familiar with the arguments of CVS vs BitKeeper. If it is a philosophical argument about a way to do things, then fine. Someone take the CVS code, fork it, and modify it to do what BitKeeper does.
It is a question of the "Software as Religion" vs "Software as Tool".
I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that Linus and the other kernel hackers were pretty proficient with CVS and knew what they were doing. If they are more productive with BK, then there is something wrong with CVS.
Productivity is what counts. This isn't an addiction -- if people want to they can switch back to CVS at any time.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
RMS has an opinion, and has expressed it... I don't see where all the ad hominim vitriol is coming from.
Like him or not, RMS is one of the Free Software movement's Great Thinkers (TM).
Sheesh... let him expound upon his point, and if you don't like it, ignore it.
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
This is different because occasionally, a Chevy worker will drive a Ford to work; and a McDonalds worker will eat Burger King food. Neither activity is restricted by their job.
"Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
That couldn't have been RMS in that quote. He didn't say GNU/Linux.
Is this thing on? Hello?
Oh, wait, you want one of those licenses to be Open Source because you feel you have an entitlement to use their product for free on terms of your choosing, and somehow the existence of another license is going to make the Open Source Fairy fly by and pay the bills. Sorry, I forgot.
As usual, RMS gets little or no respect around here, despite the fact that, as usual, he's right.
/. to listen more to RMS when he speaks and suppress your obvious desire to bash a man because he has a certain set of ideals.
Those of you saying that the restrictions RMS mentions would be lifted if you bought the commercial version are missing the point. The point by RMS is that all of the licenses under which you can use BitKeeper are draconian, as they're EULA's. The problem with EULA's is that they can be changed at any time by the developer, thus creating an unfair situation; BitKeeper could just as easily include such restrictions on its paid-for version. The other problem is that accepting them is mandatory, thus creating another power imbalance.
That said, this is all the more reason for developers to switch from BitKeeper to alternatives. BitKeeper can impose any draconian restrictions on you they wish, and you'd best not wait until you're trapped into using BitKeeper and dependant on it to change.
I'd advise the rest of
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
He doesn't give a flying fuck about open source, he only wants to sell his product.
If he wants to stay in business,he better want to sell his product.
Je ne parle pas francais.
Firstly, this isn't your project. Mr. Torvalds has made his points and position quite clear, and it's time that you and the rest of the Free Software people leave the kernel hackers well enough alone.
Also, do you have no respect what's so ever? What are you doing posting on the LKML, which is not meant to be political.
Also, it would be nice if you would get your facts straight. Bitkeeper (the gratis version, anyway) only restricts you from using it to develop a competing project, not from using one.
// file: mice.h
#include "frickin_lasers.h"
Yeah, this guy is a total loser, he is only interested in making money. This is totally different from IBM, O'Reilly and especially VA Software/Linux/Whatever, they only want to contribute to open source world domination. In fact, VA is happy to lose millions every year. Imagine, a company only interested in making money!! Someone should tell the FBI to bust these BitKeeper clowns.
I preface this by saying that I'm a big fan and proponent of open source but anyhow...
:)
:).
If free software really is better then why do people like RMS need to come out ranting about giving into the evils of proprietary software. Either it's a better model of development or it isn't, and if you have to brow beat people into using it, maybe it's not a better way of doing things. It always seems to me that the people most afraid that their beliefs are wrong are the ones screaming the loudest that they are right.
As long as we have the freedom to write free software and use free software, then I don't really see the point of such ranting. Let the software itself speak quietly of the benefits of being free rather than screaming about the evils of proprietary software.
I'm sure that Linus would be happy to use a more free product if he felt it was suited to the task. Linus, unlike RMS, has never, to my knowledge, been much of a politician. He wrote open source software because it made sense to do so. He's made his choices for the same reason anybody should, because they made good sound technical sense. (if I'm wrong here, please don't hesitate to point it out
Either it will survive and thrive because it has benefits or it will shrivel up and die. Evolution marches merrily on. I mean the process, not the mail client. Though I LOVE the mail client
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
According to RMS: If you even run bitkeeper, you can't contribute to CVS or other competetors.
That seems to be quite a restriction. Imagine a Microsoft EULA that says: if you run Windows, you can't contribute to Linux.
RMS has a point. Licenses like these are there to kill free software alternatives.
Goddamn, but what has happened to slashdot? Judging by the posts from the majority of the slashdot crowd, I think that they'd be happier if slashdot started reporting every new Microsoft Update patch instead of new Kernal releases.
Stallman is correct. Bitkeeper is a proprietary product
produced by a commercial company and that commercial
company has the legal means (whether right or not)
to suddenly change their license terms.
I quite understand Linus' and Rik's aversion to
puritanical arguments against their use of proprietary
products when such proprietary products keep
them productive.
McVoy is a good guy as far as the
Linux kernel hackers are concerned, but what will
happen if a certain Mr. Bill Gates offers
loads of cash to Mr. McVoy for his company?
Steve: Hey Bill, do I have a deal for you.
Bill: Yeah?
Steve: What do you say to spending just a little over
50 million dollars to derail Linux development
on its tracks?
We will never know the answer to this puzzler because he is the only person in the world to get slashdot headlines by posting flamebait to the wrong news groups. Anyone else would either be ignored, flamed for cross-posting, or deleted by the moderators.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
BK is not preventing Redhat, Suse, Mandrake (et al) employees from using BitKeeper, only those who actively develop Subversion or arch
It's not that they are, it's that they could.
EULAs that dictate terms of use of software (as opposed to EULAs that only address distribution), and companies that support those kind of EULAs, and a very dangerous thing.
That is Stallman's point.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
It just comes down to this. The current kernel developers don't have the same views that he has and they are angry that he expressed his views on their mailing list.
We might get annoyed at the likes of RMS but we need people like him around. And as far as those people who would want to criticize RMS for not putting out code to have a better source control then CVS, remember that the man has written quite a lot of software in his time.
Molog
So Linus, what are we going to do tonight?
The same thing we do every night Tux. Try to take over the world!
Normally I don't mind RMS spouting off about something when he has a decent leg to stand on or is using his own forum. In this case, he really doesn't.
First, he didn't seem to choose the right forum to speak in. A listserv for kernel development is not the correct space to bring political speach into. RMS's post was very possibly off topic to the list.
Second Linux is not his project, and he is not managing it. Torvalds has expressed his opinions on the Free Software movement. He doesn't believe in Free Software as an all important political idea, thus he has not don anything wrong by using Bitkeeper. Torvalds chose Bitkeeper, and that's what the project uses. Period.
RMS should attempt to open a serious technical discussion directly with Torvalds. RMS should say "What do you need?" and then deliver it. Or RMS should violate the license in a clearly absurd manner and let Bitkeeper take him to court to test the validity of the license.
It's not that BitKeeper shouldn't have the right to choose to whom they give away their product for free; it's just that many feel that it's not appropriate for something intended to be used to maintain an Open Source project such as the Linux kernel.
The problem is that all to often people come off with the attitude that free software is all the same as licensed software, it's just a matter of your choice. Many people don't seem to understand that many people who advocate free software consider this like a slap in the face.
You might want to recall 150 yrs ago when some were saying "if you don't like slavery - don't own slaves, otherwise mind your own business. it's all up to whoever chooses" , there problem was that there was no equivalency relationship back then and there is none now.
Copyrights are abusing peoples right to copy, and free software is a response to that. Mixing, matching, and choosing is not the answer, because people are using copyrights to controll me even if I don't wish to exercise them myself. It is very harmfull to try and promote some type of equivalency relationship, and IMHO this is a great example of why.
A man's accomplishments do not put him above critique, questioning, or insult.
Look, it is as simple as this: you don't like the copy protection, patent protection, whatever you have every choice NOT to buy or watch or listen to a product
All Stallman is doing in this case is showing people the consequences of choosing to use this product.
No one (no reasonable person at least) is expecting or asking McVoy to open source his product. Sure, it would be a good way to end this mess, but it's more reasonable to just stop using his closed product.
No one ever said you couldn't use closed source software, we just want to make sure that people understand the inherent risk in any closed solution with bad EULAs.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Perhaps RMS should call much of GNU software, BSD/GNU software, since much software in the GNU project are derived from works in various BSD releases. Linux distros would be called "BSD/GNU/Linux based".
Or maybe RMS just needs to STFU. I think the general concensious in the free software community is that the whole GNU/Linux argument is really quite silly.
I support RMS in many ways, he's the driving force which got us most of the free software we use today, indirectly or directly. But he fails to understand that freedom doesn't come all at once.
Think of trying to implement democracy in Iraq after Saddam's fall, or even better, in some far more impoverished nation with much less technology. You can't just put up voting booths and say you have a democracy. Democracy requires an informed citizenry, it requires literacy, it requires a stable social climate, it requires reasonable expectations of the citizens that their vote might matter, and it requires them to have their immediate concerns taken care of, like stable income and work, safe from government persecution, safe from crime.
Same with free software. I think BitKeeper's license sucks in many ways, but perfection is the enemy of good enough, and right now, BitKeeper's license is good enough for the kernel folks, so RMS should just butt out, work on an alternative if he wants, but butt out of something that is none of his business.
Infuriate left and right
"And burgers?? Don't want tomato or pickle?"
On the other hand, the GNU license prevents you from adding secret sauce without disclosing the ingredients.
Isn't it true that for any proprietary software you could presumably get code if you satisfied the owners, paid them enough or whatever? It sounds very much like you see the point as being able to get code, but completely don't 'get' the idea of taking authority out of the original developer's hands.
'Open' source and proprietary source can both be transmitted to different coders given that you satisfy the owner, get their okay. Maybe sometimes they'll agree. Maybe they won't. Maybe they're dead, or out of town, simply unavailable.
Free code, you don't have to satisfy the owner- you have to qualify to BE an owner, at which point you get all privileges of ownership to the extent that the license permits. You're not dealing with a PERSON, you're dealing with a set of legal rules. It's set up in the only way it can be so that if you see code you can HAVE it. It defines a commons that is to some extent self-protecting.
The reason it's that way and not simple public domain is, a certain person saw years ago that the public domain naturally tended towards the proprietary. Stagnation, walling off IP. That person saw fit to arrange for something else to be available.
That's the person you want to get rid of.
That's why I say- go RIGHT ahead. I already know what will happen. You wouldn't be reacting the way you are, if you didn't have some underlying assumptions about how coders should have say over what happens to their code- the idea that people should make their own 'open' licenses, should get to determine their own rules for their openness.
This is no different from very permissive proprietary licenses. The thing about the GNU sphere that is different is that it is set up to balk any effort to impose authority, up to and including RMS's. If he did a new version of the GPL in which he got to come into your house and eat your Fritos and microwave all your nonfree software CDs, GNU would promptly fork and nobody would adopt his new license at all.
Because the GNU/GPL sphere goes against the grain in balking authority from outside itself, it isn't the instinctive choice of anybody- it's giving up your power to something bigger than you. Not a person or authority, but a concept- but it's still giving up your power, to use the GPL. You have legal rights that you intentionally let go of when you use GPL, because legally you are allowed to be proprietary and take ownership of your code.
RMS may or may not have known that what he was creating in Free code would be collectively successful- in fact it's led to huge things, much grander than cooperation among non-Free independent developers (given that Linux is grander than POV-Ray ;) ). However, since it is collectively successful as a result of individual coders giving up some of their power to support the common interest, it makes sense to be interested in the reasons for this.
And it makes sense for RMS to be tireless, unbending, even maddening in his demands that people respect and understand this collective.
You only see him, the figurehead, loudly heading up this thing, and because you don't know better you see him as being in control. You see this guy as the leader, the one in charge.
The difference is, what he's leading, he has no real control over whatsoever- and he likes it that way. He can parade his ego all he wants and it won't do any harm because he HAS no authority over what he's supposedly leading.
Shouldn't you be reconsidering your hostility to the guy in light of the fact that he's not the boss of you, not the boss of Linux, not the boss of GNU, and not the boss of the GPL? You gotta make some allowances for the visionary type. Name one more socially acceptable person who's innovated something like the GPL universe, while not leaving a loophole for himself to direct and control it.
It's amazing that the same people who put themselves in a bad position with their pictures and music would again willingly do so with their kernels.
Bitkeeper could easily change their license with after an acceptable amount of market share, just as GIF, JPEG and MP3 did before them. RMS, as usual, is dead on target here.
-Chris
--an unbreakable toy is useful for breaking other toys--
Safedisc licensing agreements are also pending.
-Chris
--an unbreakable toy is useful for breaking other toys--
Yeah, but that's his job. He's the voice of conscience. Kind of like the ACLU.
Without someone to constantly point out the difference between "almost free" or "free-like" and "truly free" we might get lazy and do what's convenient, rather than what is morally right.
And no matter how you feel about him: if you hate him, agree with him, consider him a whiner... whatever... you *have* to respect someone who has such an unwavering set of principles that he is not afraid or ashamed to look like an idiot to stand up for them. No matter what, you have to admire him for that.
So despite the fact that he spins me up occasionally, I shut up and listen to what he has to say because when you come right down to it... he's right. Annoying. Irritating. But right.
Oh. And you have to respect him for emacs, too. Obviously.
On the other hand, the GNU license prevents you from adding secret sauce without disclosing the ingredients.
No, you can add your own secret sauce if the burger is for your own consumption and nobody will object. However, when you pour a mysterious liquid over the burger and offer it to the guy sitting at the next table, he is entitled to ask you what's in it and he doesn't have to eat it unless you tell him.
If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
Yes, but that Chevy worker probably *bought* that Ford, and wasn't given it by Ford.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
- Charles Darwin
Well I don't like RMS due to many reasons, mainly that he follows his ideas like a religious fanatic altogether with some very faint ideals on how the world should be. It reminds me those hippy, extreme left revolutionaries that raised Che to the level of a saint, considered Mao's sentences the Bible and USSR a traitor to communist ideals... Meanwhile there are many things on RMS that deserve some high respect. Here is one of them, because, RMS is absolutely right...
I may understand the reasons kernel developers point to hold up to BitKeeper. However they can't and shouldn't ignore the consequences of ignoring the legalities of their move. The fact that BitKeeper is factually an EULA much worse than M$ is something that may put into question the future of Linux. Yes, it is much worse because ethically violates some principals of market, things that were formed not yesterday but millenia ago. It is much worse because it is clearly not a commercial license but a typical feudal decree of the worst kind, in common terms: "you can't do that or do this while you are under my service". This is what is inside this license and it is so superficial that any deviation may turn it void. For some you may have had the chance to read documents from the V up to IX centuries, one may note that feudalism started this way. First they said "while", then they said "because" and later they didn't say nothing as everyone considered it natural...
And to consider things worse:
Larry McVoy of BitKeeper:
"Our position:
"1) No free licenses for our competition, they can buy them if they like.
"2) The software is not open source because the open source business model doesn't have a prayer of supporting the development costs.
"3) If you had built a decent system instead of sitting around and whining, we could be doing something else instead of sitting around listening to your whining."
If we look at the reaction of BitKeeper's owner, we can see that we are really going the worst way. He is ultimative, he is arrogant, for him OSS lacks prayers. But this is not the worst. The worst is that we are a mass of apatic whinners, but he stands higher and listens to the crowd of gentiles. And he only can listen whinning, nothing else, because the brilliance and crystal sound of BitKeeper's castle blinds and deafens everything else.
This is not OSS, this is not Free Software. This is not even the M$ Empire. This is the Black Cathedral.
Normally I do not agree with RMS at all. In this particular case, though, he is flat out right.
BK is infrastructure for the kernel development. This is not something that you happen to rip out and replace on a moments notice in case the license changes to something unacceptable. changing infrastructure is a painful process in which more often than not valueable metadata is lost and in which you have to change processes and retrain people.
In fact, this is precisely the reason while Linus is still using BK despite the controversial license: Convenience vs. da pain of changing.
Now, consider the license change BK put through, and what it mandates: It basically says that you cannot use the free license for Bitkeeper to use Bitkeeper for anything including Kernel development if you or your company happen to work on a version control system.
Can Bitkeeper legitimately impose such license restrictions? Yes, they can - it is their product and they can do whatever they fucking want with it.
Is such a license acceptable for Linux kernel development? Not at all. Despite the fact that there are Bitkeeper-to-CVS and Bitkeeper-to-Subversion and Bitkeeper-to-tgz-Gateways all over the place now, Non-BK users are second class citizens in Linux kernel development. They do not have realtime access, and they do not have proper access to BK metadata at all. Also, patch submissions that do not come in via BK are treated worse than patches that come in via BK - Linus and friends may say they aren't, or they aren't intentionally, but they are - again matters of convenience and infrastructure working against Non-BK users.
Switching from BK to a different systems becomes harder the longer you use them, because the systems accumulates metadata and processes center around BK - the infrastructure mechanics I explained above at work.
Finally, is this situation sane at all? That is, is there at least one party that wins because of this license change?
Well, the people who cannot use the free BK license are certainly not winning. They are shut out and have to use second-class systems to contribute to the kernel. Their enthusiasm and energy that could be used for Linux kernel development is diverted to integrating into a principally broken infrastructure.
The Linux kernel development process certainly is not winning at all. There is war and blodshed on the list, and people are switching or turning their back on kernel development out of principle, others defend Bitkeeper out of purely technical reasons, shutting out all the process problems and political outrage BK creates.
Bitkeeper, the company, certainly isn't winning, too. They created this license in order to discourage the development of BK alternatives. Well, that backfired big time. I couldn't have devised a better Subversion promotion campaign than this particular license change.
Basically, BK has pulled a Qt. That is, they created a great product that is important infrastructure for other projects, with a license that is unacceptable for many people. This is just what Qt was in the beginning of the KDE project: a truly great product in an pivotal infrastructure role for an important project (the Linux Desktop). And just like the license to Qt forced many people to create an alternative to Qt, spawning the Gnome desktop, the BK license change will be a great incentive for many to work on Subversion, Arc and related projects.
So BK actually achived the opposite of what they intended with the license change.
Is there any other party that might be winning? Well, yes. Microsoft. But you already knew that. And hey, they even have a version control system.
RMS doesn't give a damn about convenience, especially for his own sake. He cares about ideals, and challenges everyone else to do the same. Most of his life has been spent trying to make living with his ideals more convenient. Most of us losers spend our lives rationlizing about our ideals until our ideals are convenient. I hope this explains where RMS is coming from and why he says the stuff he does.
Linus Torvalds is more like the majority of people whose ideals meld (by design or otherwise, I don't want to guess) with convenience. This is probably part of why he is fairly popular and seen as a regular guy (unlike RMS). For instance, Torvalds feels the "best" tool for the job should be used regardless. Unfortunately, Torvalds has never taken the time to describe for us exactly what "best" means. I'm sure he doesn't mean anything so sinister as "if unpaid child labor makes the tool cheaper, then it's better!", or so naive as "I'll pay anything for the best, screw value/dollar!".
RMS doesn't give a damn about Larry McVoy's company succeeding with propietary software. I believe (I don't want to put words in RMS' mouth) this is because RMS feel propietary software is worthless in the long run, and hence a waste of society's time, energy, and money. I believe he could win this argument, should he choose to make it. Torvald's feelings on the subject are useless until he defines what he means by "best".
My second personal interjection for this post is about competition versus scratching itches. It's not clear to me that the "competition" from BitKeeper is what will spur the creation of a Free package with similar features -- Torvalds doesn't seem motiviated by competition with Microsoft (he's said such several times), so it's not obvious to me that software authors will be motivated to compete with BitKeeper for the sake of competition alone.
The people in the Free and Open Source communities most affected by the lack of Free BitKeeper alternatives are the Linux (i.e. kernel) developers. Most others seem to be happy enough with existing tools, with just enough disgruntelment that subversion is finally emerging. Thus BitKeeper is providing non-Free itch-relief for the only people in the communities who are have this particular itch. Rik and Linus are dreaming if they think I care about their itches more than I care about mine. Essentially, the only people who are likely to produce BitKeeper alternatives are those kernel developers who refuse to use BitKeeper because of their ideals (if they don't use BitKeeper because they don't like source control, or because they're lazy, then they're unlikely to write a replacement).
That is, only people with strong ideals about Free software are likely to write a replacment for BitKeeper. That means people more like RMS and less like Linus.
-Paul Komarek
There are plenty of open source systems for version control and configuration management. Furthermore, they way open source works, if you need an unusual tool for your project, you create it yourself and share it.
It's funny how much people will bitch when they're not the ones that have to deal with the inadequacies of $OSS_SM_TOOL when it comes to kernel development.
There are plenty of huge open source projects, and they work fine with CVS. GNU Hurd is being developed with CVS. BSD is. To me, the real question is: what is going wrong with Linux kernel development that CVS is not sufficient?
You obviously don't know Larry McVoy.
I first met Larry McVoy on usenet. He was highly cogent in his arguments, and generally a very intelligent guy. Unlike a lot of the idiots who came in after the NSF quit running the Internet, you could actually hold a technical discussion with him, after which you would have a solution, or an approach to a solution, for the problem at hand.
I've talked with him on the telephone on several occasions, when issues have come up that merited a telephone conversation; I've called him, and he's called me, though it has been a while since our last voice conversation.
When Larry McVoy left Sun, he wanted to take the SunOS 4.1.3_U1 code (U2 has not yet come out), and release it under the GPL. This was quite visionary, given the amount of competition that Linux is now giving Sun, even internally, within their own engineering staff, these days. Sun would not do the release, because it would cannibalize their SVR4-derived "Solaris" market.
Larry's motivations in this case were, I think, base... in that he wanted to "rescue" the important work which had been done on the BSD dervice Solaris (SunOS) code base. He saw the GPL as a way to do that.
Larry was an early GPL advocate, in this sense. Frankly, I'm glad he failed in this endeavor; it wporbably would have meant the end of BSD derived OSs, which generally exist only because the GPL is too draconian for people who need to do business.
Larry became an outspoken Linux advocate; he authored the "lmbench" suite of micro-benchmarks, all of which show Linux in a good light, compared to its competition. One can argue that these tools drove a number of the important design decisions in the Linux kernel itself, which, among other things, led to the current threading model and code, which *depends* upon the fact that process context switch overhead is minimal, and there is very little difference between it and thread context switch overhead.
Larry advocated Open Source software, in general: BitKeeper, by it's nature, *from the beginning*, offered free licenses those people who woul publish their source archive, as the cost of the license.
Thus, by its nature, BitKeeper encourages free software by providing economic incentive.
But, like the GPL itself, it is an instrumentality, and the instrumentality must not obey the same rules as that on which it acts.
The GPL carries a prohibition against modification: it is not itself under the GPL. Ask yourself "Why?".
For this same reason, good or bad, BitKeeper can not itself be Open Source software. Yes, there are economic issues. Despite people's intentional misinterpretation of the word "support" in Larry's statements to mean "technical support" rather than "economic support", Larry's correct: the Open Source model is not economically self supporting for stategic projects... it only supports itself for tactical projects.
That RMS is complaining about BitKeeper now is, I think, sour grapes. That's the kind interpretation. The unkind interpreation is that BitKeeper is a more effective mechanism than the GPL itself for achiving the goals of the GNU Manifesto, of which the GPL is an instrumentality.
So before you call Larry an idiot, or blindly GPL or even BSDL your next set of source code, understand the long term consequences of the license.
Frankly, I'm glad he's let go of the understandable bitterness that comes from pouring your soul into a product, only to have it hidden away in a vault by an employer with goals other than advancement of the art and science of computer science.
I think this license demonstrates that he's come to his senses, on strategic issues -- a painful lesson. Would that RMS would so the same.
Thanks,
-- Terry
Imagine Bill Gates realising that his real cash cow is Microsoft Office, and that MS Windows is just the technology that keep MS Office ahead of the competitors, by having early access to new or secret API's. In that case, it might make perfect sense to license MS Windows gratis in order to keep off any competitors. And of course, not license it gratis to people who worked for companies who contributed to software that compete with Microsoft offereings.
Suddenly, any company that used Linux/Samba/Apache on their servers, and occationally contributed a bug fix to either of these, would have to pay for all their MS Windows desktop licenses, which could be arbitrary high as most customers would not be affected.
In other words, MS could make it arbitrarily expensive for companies to participate in the development of free software that competed with Micosoft products.
The BitKeeper trap would be an excellent way for Bill Gates to kill of the competion from free software. We just have to hope he doesn't realise this, or that he have a higher sense of business ethics than Larry McVoy.
Let's see.. a few years back Linus just used CVS. Developers began complaining about shortcomings since Linux became too big to be handled in plain CVS etc.
Since CVS is a different beast then the Linux Kernel they did not try to develop something themselves. Besides, that would only distract them from kernel development. To make things worse the competitor, subversions, wasn't much usefull eather since it was still in development (and still is).
So Linux chose BitKeeper. Not because he was pushed or otherwise but because it was, and still is, the best alternative offered then and now. Not because out of convenience but to keep the development going in a strong pace lest it become, like the HURD, a product which seems to be never finished.
BitMover provided the software for free to kernel developers. The only real restriction is that you ae not allowed to use BitKeeper to create a competitive product. Why? Because that's the way BitMover earns it's money to pay it's employees and to fund development for BitKeeper.
So, to be able to use a good product (BitKeeper) which in it's turn made it possible to create a good product (linuxkernel) Linus agreed on the terms that were layed out. If they should have to go back to CVS (which is technologically still possible although people claim otherwise) they would also have to go back to all the problems there were before they started using BitKeeper.
And may eventually a better product come by which is OSS then i would have no doubt everyone would switch to using that.
I can understand RMS's opinion. He sees the flagship of the FSF being "corrupted" by closed source software. This is of course a big blow to him. The FSF always tried to create the tools to do the job themselves. Apparently their jobs were not as big as the Linux kernel though. So their tools became inadequate. However, instead of arguing he could also try to understand the forces that work here. If he could start up a project aiming to replace BitKeeper i think alot of people would jump right in. But if he does not then please be a bit more polite against the people working on the Linux kernel.
So far for this not entirely coherent post...
Say what you want, but the man shure has one hell of an impact. :-).
He get's pissy on some issue (for valid reasons too), drops a word on it and all of a sudden even slashdot has some really intelligent controversial discussion going on.
It is really all what someone like RMS could want and bargain for, and if I judge him right it's just what he intended.
Presumtion:
From what I gather the kernel group can use a little self reflection to. Because: If kernel dev is actually stalled by this BitKeeper vs. OSS Tool debate (I hope not so hefty) it is in a state where carrying on with buisness as usual would have driven Linux into a messy corner.
I predict that, within a relatively short term, either Bitkeeper will see a chance for cool PR and modify their license to 'free for free Software products' or something or just now some people are firing up a VCS project that is to Emporer Linus' likeing and thus will be prefered
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
It already did. If you are on a campus where anyone (not you - anyone) is working on patches to CVS you are not allowed to use Bitkeeper in the same way I am. What's not arbitary about that?
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Did you mean, a "Brave GNU World"? I'm sorry Mr. Huxley, but it's just so appropriate.
I know more than you drink.
This is not FUD and it is not panic. It's a problem and a serious one.
The fact that RMS is frequently one-sided is a fact and I agree with partially with you on the case of single criteria. However you should note that a larger part of the people here is worried not about this but on the fact that someone is being more papist than the Pope. And it's not RMS but BitKeeper. These license policies may lead to the fact that, in one point of time, BK may hinder a lot the development of Linux. Note that Linux is not ONE product for ONE objective on ONE SINGLE environment. Inside of it, along with it and beyond it there are TONS of programs, applications, drivers and other stuff which depend on Linux and which Linux depends of. To understand how BK may hinder this, try to get a deeper look at their license.
This is a license directly against best value. It is a binding that forces people into conditions where they may be unable to find that same best value. The license is even anti-commercial as it forbids people to sell third-products, that may have nothing to do with BK, except some similarity on functionality. No matter the qualities of BK, such term is enough to put it more dangerous than M$.
If BK is sincere on being a good company, willing to receive a direct reward, they should choose three ways - turn the license into a genuine commercial license, make a license in terms near to BSD,or separate it into components with different licensings. Probably this would hinder kernel developers, but there is a problem on playing with half-agreements, not seeing dropped nets, accepting broad middle-terms and forgetting about consequences. In one way or the other this may one day turn into the bad corner. Much like M$ did since its advent, let's not forget that 10 years ago BG was Luke against the Empire. Frankly I would not like to see Torvalds being compared to Dart Vader...
"If you had built a decent system instead of sitting around and whining, we could be doing something else instead of sitting around listening to your whining."
Man, did that quote put me off. I wonder, for instance, what compiler Larry uses to build BitKeeper. Or what version of shell utils. Or what editor. Or what MTA. Or what DNS server.
RMS and friends *did* build a decent system, which is exactly the reason that Larry is getting all of this publicity for BitKeeper. Think anyone would have heard of BitKeeper if Linus didn't endorse it? Think anyone would have heard of Linus if it weren't for RMS' "decent system"?
-Pez
What a load o' crap. Larry McVoy basically says three things:
;)
1. We very much like to give both the poor and the rich the option of using our software (without illegally using it), the only thing we disagree with is that our competitors use it for free. While it may be short-sighted, in no way is this worse than Perforce or any of the other commercial versioning tools which cannot be used by anyone for free.
2. We don't believe that an open source product can financially be succesful in this market segment (that is what he actually said, not that all OSS is hopeless). You call this arrogant, but where o where is this money making open source versioning tool to disprove Larry? Besides, there is no reason to call someone arrogant for a honest opinion (unless you are part of the thought police).
3. You have every right to create your own ultracool open source product, but don't claim that you have any right to use our work for free unless you follow our rules. If you want a versioning tool that doesn't have these restrictions, build your own instead of whining.
I certainly don't think that Larry is against OSS or its proponents. What he is against, is people who blame him when he is ten times nicer to users than most other developers. Because no matter how you twist the argument, a commercial license is all your gonna get with almost every other commercial product. BitMover gives you another option, one which you may accept or not, but it can never take anything away from the basic proposition that you get with most commercial products: pay to use it. Besides, the commercial license they use is not a shinkwrap EULA, but a legitimate contract that you must sign. So all in all, BitMover doesn't seem to be any more evil than other commercial developers (probably much less actually). I agree that Larry could have used a bit more tact, but the same can be said for RMS. That's why they should both stick to coding IMHO
The Drowned and the Saved - Primo Levi
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.