Slashdot Mirror
RMS Calls On Linux Developers To Replace BitKeeper
JakusMinimus writes "The developer of BitKeeper has issued fighting words to RMS and he has responded on the LKML,. I remember the flap about this way back when Linus decided on BitKeeper, now it seems many of the non-free concerns were warranted."
I didn't follow this controversy too closely when it came out (I could care less about kernels), but my impression then was that the best argument for moving away from BitKeeper was that Larry McVoy clearly had some personality issues. Now that he's promised to deliberately break interoperability with any compatible product, RMS looks reasonable in comparison. I know Linus is very agnostic about licenses, but it doesn't seem wise to collaborate with someone who has stated his opposition to one of the main reasons so many people use Linux in the first place. Is it really worth dealing with that asshole?
Oh, and LKML's web server isn't a very good advertisement for free software right now.
It's worth a look, if only for the ideas.
Easy, automatic testing for Perl.
All these things, software included, share a fundamental characteristic: they are all forms of art - a personal expression of the author that can be appreciated and enjoyed by others for nothing more than what other people perceive that it adds to their own life.
I certainly wouldn't ever say that nobody has any rights to give away any their creations, but I don't think anybody has any rights to dictate whether or not someone else should be allowed to seek financial compensation for their endeavors. Stallman is perfectly within his rights, IMO, to encourage, however strongly, the creation of free alternatives to commercial software, but he doesn't have any business to keep telling particular commercial software authors to stop doing what they do after they've already told him thanks but no thanks.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
I can't believe this wound up on Slashdot. First of all, the vger list admin already shitcanned the thread from LKML because it's just inappropriate there. Now it moves over here for further idiotic discussion.
If you read the original thread between McVoy and Rory Browne, you'll see that Rory started the whole thing by posting a BitKeeper licensing question to the LKML. I'd almost say Rory was just trolling. From there, McVoy's personality took over and he tossed out a worst-case scenario (rewriting the BK protocol to stay ahead of people trying to reverse-engineer it), and that's what spawned RMS's post.
Okay, so I won't disagree that having open protocols and open software is a good thing. But this is hardly a good example for RMS to pick on. There are completely open CVS and SVN gateways into BK, so at no point is the Linux Kernel code at risk. Major kernel hackers such as Alan Cox don't even use BK themselves - they use CVS or SVN to do all their kernel development.
If you read further down the thread, you'll find that even the most rabid of anti-BK people on the list concede McVoy's point - it's his product, protected by his license, and he can do anything he damn well pleases with it. There should be no more upset over this than when the Linux community went after Linksys to get them to obey the GPL for their router software.
The thread ends with a number of posts by people thanking Larry for what he's done by providing tools that make our kernel get better. That and a number of other "we don't need to rehash this again" messages. It's apparent that people are tired of this issue.
This is already the case in many non-US jurisdictions. German law, for example, does not allow you to sign away your copyright to anything you create. Copyrights are never transferrable but, of course, you can get a license to use the material. Similarly, you can't give away your right to a court hearing (making binding arbitration an impossibility in such a jurisdiction).
I think that some stuff you ought not be able to give away. Otherwise, you as an individual might find yourself at a disadvantage at the bargaining table. If, for example, software company A had a large market share and as part of its sales agreements stipulates that everything you create with that software automatically belongs to company A, you wouldn't have much power to bargain here. Either you accept the terms or your don't use the product. That kind of unfair advantags is what such legal restrictions are supposed to prevent.
"Light is faster than sound." - "Is that why people tend to look bright until you hear them speak?"
Please somebody point out the weak link in my reasonning. I can feel it is warped but can't fail it.
And Section 6 of the LGPL states
Considering this, can the BitKeeper license really forbid reverse-engineering, and still be allowed to use the GNU C Library ?
I am but a lowly CS student trying to follow the subtleties of software licenses battles, not a lawyer, and my not being a native english speaker may have made me misunderstand the problem.
> Personally, I think this is such an important issue, and I can't believe people are walking into this
They traded convenience for liberty. And the 'They' is Linus.
I followed the BK thing from the beginning. It is 100% certain that it will clash sometime in the future.
First because RMS is right (you should not use non-free software even if it is 'easier')
Second, because larry changed opinion a lot of time. He clearly cannot be trusted. He just want to use linux as a marketing tool for his product.
Third, because no onelooks at the long time implication. The development process is hugely important (aggraved by the fact that most kernel developers are not even aware of the existence of a process). And now, a commercial entity control the process.
BSD development is so much mature than linux development that it is not even funny anymore (how funny. [The irony is that the BSD folks are supposed to be less free(dom) than linux folks].
As a side point, I think that newscomers to Free software take freedom as granted. They don't recall time where you had to pay to get a compiler, to pay to get an operating system, to pay to get manuals. And sometimes, you were refused the access to the dev tools because you were not a professional. And when the tools were free, you could get them removed from you at anytime (ie: becoming obsolete). I learned to value my freedom. I suspect that most new hobbyist developers take the freedom of the tools as granted, so closed-source but free is free enought.
I only hope that when it'll clash (not *if*, but *when*), people have learned something. This is why I hope for a huge clash (like BK getting bought by microsoft, which is probably Larry business plan).
--fred
"Judge, I want to ignore this license which I never agreed to"
The BK license is a click-through EULA like any other. Just like all of them, it's not valid.
Unless your country decides to pass a law making them binding, it won't effect you. (Even if your nation allows electronic contracts, the software vendor would have to take some steps to record the agreement in a valid manner. BitKeeper, like most publishers, does not do that)
If a person permits you to download his software without obtaining an agreement as to how you'll use it, you can do whatever you want (execute the code) so long as you don't violate copyright (make copies of the program, which is unnecessary if you've already got a copy from the publisher)
In general, RMS's position with regard to "free software" (as in freedom) is RARELY off-target. This is because his motivations are simply an outcome of the reasoning that code, like any other form of expression, is crystallized thought, and as thought should be cherished and spread to as many as possible to share it's benefits (and, in some cases, drawbacks). The GPL is one tool that helps ensure the spread of thought in code form. It truly is a disease to think that thought products (affectionately known as "intellectual property") can truly be contained. So why not embrace the fact that we as human beings are tremendously adept at copying, processing and synthesizing thought products.
The other tool at his disposal is a relentless pursuit of the goal that all software should be "free" (again, as in freedom). Software that is not free is always suspect: the "owner" that reserves rights to restrict others in their ability to utilize "their" software is prone to an "absolute power" syndrome. Their intentions may start out noble, but that can change at any moment. Sad to say, but it appears the Mr. McVoy may be on the verge of this. I remember reading the mailing-list archives when this first blew up. Mr. McVoy really has drawn a mental line in the sand that he's not willing to cross. It is unclear if he has the strength of character to let go of his "closed-source" ways. It would really be nice if he did.
Unfortunately, in pursuit of his "free" software goal RMS is likely to piss people off, hence the established rancor at him. Fortunately, RMS has the resolve to see past this and move on. It will be a rocky road to enlightenment for most (it certainly is for me, and I can't even begin to claim any form of enlightenment), but it certainly is liberating.
A replacement for BitKeeper should be developed post-haste, subversion looks promising, but needs many features to completely replace BK. I personally use subversion in my own projects and found it to be quite workable.
Food for though (pun intended): Are your thoughts yours? Do you own your thoughts? If so, how do you exert thought ownership rights? If you never existed would your thoughts exist in others? Now, granted, there clearly are expressions of my thought process that others recognize as "me", but at work, if others were confronted with the problems you work to solve every day what is the likely-hood that others would produce the same or similar solutions as yours? I find it amazing looking at all of the various Web site building technologies out there built by many others how similar many of their solutions are to the ones I produce. The evidence that elements of "my" thoughts are going on in other people's heads oh so clearly demonstrates the fact that "intellectual property" are hollow words. Pursuing the task of squirreling away your thoughts and jealously guarding them is the labor of sick-minded people. Even writing what I writing now is not new. Most of you have read "drivel" like this before, but it is still worth mentioning. Just think about it.