Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

BitMover Releases Open Source BitKeeper Client

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the bits-a-shakin dept.

diegocgteleline.es writes "Larry McVoy, the owner of BitKeeper (also one of the guys behind LMbench) has posted a message to linux-kernel where he announces a open source client of BitKeeper, which would only allow synching against BK trees. It looks like it's licensed under the NWL (No Whining License) that will force you to 'not whine about this product or any other products from BitMover, Inc.'"

12 of 255 comments (clear)

  1. Indeed... by Svartalf · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Larry's entitled to license things under any license he wants to. It's HIS product. However, having said this, it's still quite understandable for people to not want Linux development being tied to a closed-source product with nasty gotchas in it's free license. That's not whining in the least.

    The only thing resembling "whining" seems to be coming from Larry himself with this silly license. All it's going to do is make the acrimony WORSE, not better. Kind of childish, in my not so humble opinion.

    --
    I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
    1. Re:Indeed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      However, having said this, it's still quite understandable for people to not want Linux development being tied to a closed-source product with nasty gotchas in it's free license. That's not whining in the least.

      The problem is that people who whined about BK being propietary should have shut their mouth up, but they didn't. When Linus switched to BK, he made clear that he would NOT force to anyone to use BK, and that's how it has been: Linux kernel.org releases are released in GNU diff format, so everybody can code and contribute. The one reason why all^Wmost of the kernel developers use BK is because they aren't stupid, BK is a great tool and can save hours of work, and it lets them to work easier between those who use BK. When someone wants to get a patch to get merged they also made the GNU diff format patch available, and even if they didn't, bkbits.net provides you a link to get a GNU diff patch for every changeset out there. Those who claim that "anyone who wants to closely track patches to Linux can only do it by installing that non-free program" to develop the kernel are just wrong because you have access to the latest kernel changes without installing a non-free tool. -mm and -ac tree are maintained using open tools, so I don't see where is BK being "required".

      The one reason why people whine is because they want to have the advantages of BK, but without using a propietary tool. That's not possible, there's not a OSS tool comparable to BK, subversion arch and friends are not even close. Everybody agrees that having such tool would be great (Linus even tried to convince Larry to release BK under a open license) but there's not one.

      IMHO is just like when RMS had to use propietary tools to start developing GNU - Linux developers just use BK because using a OSS SCM would mean the linux kernel development would slow down a lot, and that's not good (and again, if you are going to propose to use subversion, arch, etc, it probably means that you do not understand the frenetic kernel development needs and the power of BK)

  2. Re:Strange by tupshin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Actually he said in the email that the whining license was a joke and he's actually licensing it as BSD (and later said it could even be considered public domain), though until the source code is re-released with proper license headers, I doubt his statement to lkml is legally binding in any way.

    -Tupshin

  3. Re:Strange by M1FCJ · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Thinking of his track record, I wouldn't bet on his software. First you couldn't do anything, then you couldn't even use it if you were messing with other source control systems, now he is saying it is free for anything. If someone reverse engineers a GPL/BSDL BitKeeper server clone using the client will he tolerate it or will he try to crush it? That's the crux of it.

  4. Re:Bazaar-NG by Per+Abrahamsen · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The original implementation of GNU Arch was done in bourne shell. Pyhton is a big step up from that.

    In any case, I think it is a fine combination when the core functionality of a program is written in a statically typed language, and UI binding it together is written in a dynamically typed language.

  5. Re:Bazaar-NG by shish · · Score: 4, Insightful
    How do I use bazaar, arch or subversion to check out the kernel's bitkeeper repositories?

    The point of this article is that you no longer need to use the "we own your soul" closed source BK client just to download the kernel; you can use the open source client instead.

    --
    I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
  6. Re:Open alternatives by koko775 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Because BitMover will itself be a "real open alternative". Why bother with subversion, arch, and (your personal favorite) darcs? Surely it's because you have the power of choice, and the freedom of source?

  7. Re:Open alternatives by winchester · · Score: 4, Insightful
    There are so much real open alternatives like subversion, arch and (my personal favourite) darcs - just to name a few. Why bother with bitkeeper?

    Gosh, get a clue, will you! Or read the lkml archives. Linus chose bitkeeper precisely because all the alternatives you mention don't cut it.

    This is exactlythe attitude that keeps holding open source back. It's not about whether the source is open or not, it is about choosing the right tool for the right job. More people should understand this...

  8. Re:Open alternatives by AuMatar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No, your attitude is the one with the problem. No current open source solution adequate? Then help make one that is- either by improving an existing alternative, or starting your own. If you don't have the skills/time to do so, encourage others who do to take it up. Just criticizing without doing anything about it helps noone.

    --
    I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
  9. Which is nice... by Kjella · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No, your attitude is the one with the problem. No current open source solution adequate? Then help make one that is- either by improving an existing alternative, or starting your own.

    ...if you're trying to do the community a service. If you're looking to put food on the table doing something completely unrelated (where this is simply a support function), it is mindnumbingly stupid. Most likely you're long out of business by the time it is working.

    Sure, if all you need is some minor customization, maybe. But if it clearly isn't anywhere near being up to the task, pick something non-OSS. Earn some money, help out the projects where it is feasible to replace proprietary with OSS.

    That is the way OSS projects prospers. I make a 98% solution a 100% one. That makes it a 98% solution for someone else, who'll make it a 100% solution for them. And the snowball is rolling. Not by one company breaking its back trying to bring it from 40% to 100%.

    Kjella

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  10. Re:bitkeeper is not on my radar by dave420 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    But you keep your beer in your own fridge, which you don't have the schematics for, so your analogy is somewhat lacking ;)

    I admire your ideology-before-productivity attitude, though... inspiring.

  11. Re:Rule of Thumb by base3 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    The conversation, simplified, is something like this:

    Customer: How much is it?

    Salesman: How much do you have?

    --
    One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.