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.
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?"
"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)