Slashdot Mirror
RMS Weighs in on BitKeeper Debacle
mshiltonj writes "You know its what we've all been waiting for: RMS weighs in on the BitKeeper debacle. An excerpt: "I want to thank Larry McVoy. He recently eliminated a major weakness of the free software community, by announcing the end of his campaign to entice free software projects to use and promote his non-free software. Soon, Linux development will no longer use this program, and no longer spread the message that non-free software is a good thing if it's convenient."
Do you prefer vi or Emacs?
Now let's get back to actually working on this replacement...
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
Yeah imagine paying for something that's convenient and useful. How evil can you get :)
McVoy's great triumph was the adoption of this program for Linux development. No free software project is more visible than Linux. It is the kernel of the GNU/Linux operating system, an essential component, and users often mistake it for the entire system. As McVoy surely planned, the use of his program in Linux development was powerful publicity for it.
Yeah, RMS is all about Free/Free but I see it as an important step for all software. Free stuff that isn't "totally free" is *not* wrong.
I would like to make my personal feelings known that non-totally free stuff that is later taken away because someone didn't learn "no give backs" is lame.
Yeah, RMS is right about a lot of stuff and really does have vision but I just have to disagree w/him here. Not everything has to be free.
Yes, he is saying the same things as always. The same things he's been saying twenty years ago. And still, the rest of the world keeps behaving in exactly such ways that his words apply perfectly, again and again. Makes you wonder who's being more stubborn, exactly.
What does Sen. Bill Frist have to do with this?
There's nothing wrong with non free software, so long as the cost is worth the end result. Sometimes it makes more sense to buy something because it is supported and stable and someone can be held accountable for mistakes. Don't get me wrong, open source software has it's place, but that place is not every where. For the most part Open Source means Open Sore, which is fine if you have the time/engery/resources to make it work the way it needs to. Not everything is free.
Soon, Linux development will no longer use this program, and no longer spread the message that non-free software is a good thing if it's convenient
Until something else comes along that suits there needs. I don't recall Linus saying, "Gee, I'll never do that again!"
OK, if you're a Stallman Myrmidon, just mod me as a troll or flamebait now.
Re-read the quote. Now try re-reading it with a cheesy Eastern-bloc accent (Boris Badenov will do in a pinch). How long before Stallman gets up on a podium and starts banging with his shoe shouting, We will bury you!"
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
"Well, I don't want to sound like a dickhole, but I told you so." - Mr. Garrison
Why do all people in software seem to fall into one of two sides?
"Open source is best, paying for software is dumb and evil!"
"Open source is for idiots, you'll live with your mothers till they die then you're on the street. Make money or get out"
Whatever happened to "every hole has a peice to fit it, some peices require different tasks to get them. Some require money, others require some code". It's no wonder MS is calling people communists, it's exactly the same pathetic ideals which no one wishs to adapt to the world.
I like muppets.
Dude, his whole point is that the KERNEL should be called Linux and a system built on it should be called GNU/Linux. So, no, it's not too funny.
I don't know about Frist, it but sounds like Howard Dean might have something to do with it.
---
Then go here and you will love him!
an ill wind that blows no good
Quote that describes RMS best:
"RMS is a madman, but fortunatly he's our madman".
RMS is a lot funnier if you put "Bitch!" at the end of his quote...
hehe, that is funny... but it should be noted that in this case RMS is actually talking specifically about linux, the kernel, and not gnu/linux, the operating system.
who is she? leave a comment!
RMS uses Linux to mean the kernel just not the whole OS. In this case he did mean Linux.
No, the priorities are different. For a long shot, he'd consider it more important to create a free tool to do the task well, than to just do it with a non-free tool. It's just that, to him, freedom is more important than anything else. So, it's very natural and consistent that he'd rather first write the free tool and then do the task, instead of the other way round (and probably never get around to writing that free tool, anyway).
Richard Stallman is a nut who would kill the entire software industry if he had his way.
If all software was "free" according to Stallman's definition, there would be no incentive for students to enter into the software industry (we're already seeing this in the US). That will lead to a lack of skilled programmers, and eventual stagnation and death of the entire software industry (including "free" software).
I am the maverick of Slashdot
If either the grandparent or the parent poster had read the article, they would know why their comments are off the mark. RMS meant "Linux" in this context, as he explains right there in the article.
The more I hear FROM Stallman the more scared I am...Hacker Song
:)
Though hackers may be good with code,
they can't sing, hackers they can't sing!!!
Some sounds can make a person's head explode
Oh the pain, hackers, oh the pain.
Just a joke, RMS, no need to go GNU/Postal on me.
> An Open Source project is being killed because the highest authority in Open Source OS namely Mr. Linus, decided not to use it and now the rest of the community is cheering it. Way to go guys.
;)
Uh-huh, right......
BitKeeper is not "open source." Nobody ever got the source outside of Larry McVoy's company. BitKeeper is proprietary software that you normally have to pay money to use. McVoy allowed "free" use for "free" software projects and Linus chose to use it for managing his end of Linux kernel development.
After Andrew Tridgell showed how you could connect to a BitKeeper repository using netcat to see what the "protocol" does, Mr. McVoy said no more "free" BitKeeper for you and went home.
No Open Source or Free Software projects were harmed in all of this, except that now Linus is going to develop his own tool for managing the kernel code instead of using something that's already available, because apparently, he's tried them all and decided that none really work for him.
Just be sure to wear the gold uniform when you beam down -- you know what happens when you wear the red one.
My guess would be their message will be exactly the same (or Linus's will be, given he controls the project). Bitkeeper nonwithstanding, their argument will still be use the best tool for the job. They might be more inclined to think about the potential costs of non-Free software, but their overall philosophy is unlikely to make a significant change.
It's sad, but most people nowadays (including me, for that matter) will take the practical way over the idealistic way. RMS gets pissed (if I read this right) because people by and large steadfastly refuse to be idealists. I would be curious to ask him what his take would be on someone who thinks it is idealistic to promote capitalism and the economy (and hence a better standard of living, at least in their minds) by refusing to give anything away free. My guess is he would say they are dead wrong, tragically wrong, or even criminally wrong, but I'll bet he would find that person less exasperating on some level because they were acting on principle rather than expedience.
I don't say I agree with RMS - in fact in general I tend to be rather pragmatic about this sort of thing. But my pragmatic thinking basically boil down to:
1) We live in a highly litigious society
2) I have a finite amount of money
3) Commercial software is expensive for my income
4) Most of my software use is not the kind of use where the software Must Work. A few bugs or missing features aren't the end of the world.
5) Should I happen to create something with software I want to sell commercially (let's say a book) I don't want to have to worry about Microsoft coming after me for improper licensing and demanding a chunk of royalties or something equally fun.
6) Any kind of legal action, even that with little to no merit, is enough to cause major headaches.
7) Hence, in balance, there is no reason for me to either pay $$$ for commercial software or pirate it when there are workable, free alternatives.
This has some exceptions - I use Acrobat Reader for example, which is only free as in beer but allows me to fill out tax forms. But in general I prefer tools with licenses that cost no money, demand no information, don't expire, and at least in theory allow me and/or anyone to fix them when they break. That's what meets my needs.
Maybe, in some sense, it could be argued that ideals ARE practical, because the long term consequences of going without them don't tend to be good.
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
frankly little in his response should be any surprise to anyone who has any idea who he is. this is what he's about, DUH. Given the way that the GPL was constructed, to pretty specifically ensure the purity and freedom of anything using it he has made his views abundantly clear.
I think he makes a good point, ultimately, ANY price will exclude SOMEBODY....no matter how cheap. For GNU/Linux, that just can't work. If it's in the Kernel or the basic GNU tools, its GOT to be FREE, OPEN, and unencumbered by patents or IP. The same goes for anything you need to get AT the source, like BK. Besides, what's wrong with using something like CVS or subversion anyway??
sometimes, i wonder if i'm the only conservative on teh intarweb. ah well, back to mah hogs and warmongerin'....
git will get better and one day it will be competitive with the best-of-breed software, and the benefits of this will flow to everyone - from rabif free software gurus to people who just can't afford commercialware.
If Bitkeeper had been a game, very few here would have complained about the fact that it's not truly free, and one wouldn't expect Linus to be terribly annoyed in the face of Tridge's actions.
But Bitkeeper was used in the role of a mission-critical piece of software. This is not really any different in importance than the kernel you run, or the database engine that stores your critical information, or the office suite you use, or perhaps even the web browser you use.
What makes those pieces of software so important are the consequences to you if they should fail to function properly, or if their use should suddenly be taken from you. They're mission-critical, or (perhaps) infrastructural in nature -- their importance is much higher to their users than that of much of the software that's out there.
And so, the importance of them being truly free is also much higher.
I sometimes wonder what the consequences to the Linux kernel today would be if Linus had taken a few weeks off to write the revision control system he wants and needs, rather than to deploy Bitkeeper. He'd have to stop accepting patches to the Linux kernel for that period of time, of course, but the submitters of the patches in question could certainly sit on them until he was ready, no?
In any case, I agree with RMS that there's a lesson here: if you use proprietary software for mission-critical work, you're essentially giving control over that mission to someone else. Think about that carefully before you choose.
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
He doesn't mince his words and he clearly gets his point across.
Personally, I agree with him. It makes NO sense to lock open source software up into propietary closed source control systems.
Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
IE is free once you get above software.
No matter what tool or code you cite, I can cite closed code that is very cheap or no cost.
We are not in this just to save money, if that is what you are thinking you have missed the entire point of free software.
Yes, me too.
In other words, BitMover Inc. spent money and did research to determine what features were needed. Now Andrew Tridgell will simply implement thoses features.
Now, equivalent free software is better than non-free software (you get the source code, and many more rights), but we have to accept that kind of incident reduces the motivation of software firms to write software in the GNU niche of the market (unless they can figure a way to make money which does not involve selling the software see SuSE or Red Hat). If I discovered that people running GNU/Linux needed some kind of software, and tried to write it and make money by selling the software itself, RMS (or someone else) would instantly sponsor a "free software alternative". Thus I'd have two options: make the software free from the start (donating the programming effort with no gain) or not write it at all.
In the GNU world, both alternatives are good. The ecology of this market drifts towards all-free software, the holy grail of the FSF. For myself, since this kind of ecology does not always guarantee the software I want being available, I'd love to buy proprietary software when the alternative is no software at all.
I've wondered about this myself. In an essay (one of the ones in "Free Software, Free Society", and assuredly on his webpage or fsf's as well) he mentions that it is acceptable to run non-free software in order to develop a free alternative- so, it's acceptable to run Unix until a Linux kernel and a bunch of free tools enable development on a free platform, it's acceptable to have a PC running windows to make sure you can interoperate with Word, etc.
;)
I find myself seeing his points but being unwilling to condemn closed source stuff. I guess that puts me more in the open source camp than the free software camp, but I do agree that the freedom you get with the source code an a friendly license are reassuring on many levels beyond simply getting better software.
(To avoid a half-troll myself, I'd like to point out that RMS's categories of software are disputed by more than a few, the Free/Open duality being attacked in particular)
The fact that he's idealogically hard edged is *why* he's controversial, recall.
Anyway, I'm glad of the announcement. I was hoping he'd throw in a final word after everyone else ran around, spurting blood.
Reading RMS is like a guilty pleasure.
To answer your question, my understanding is that RMS would rather have you develop a free alternative instead of ignoring the task, and in doing so solve the problem for you and the others that come after you.
For diverting countless talented volunteer programmers towards his own agenda rather than cool projects. Linus is already working full time on free software under RMSes favorite license. Let him use Visual Studio, SourceSafe and Word to do it if he wants. If someone else wants to write a free source control system, word processor and so on, let them go ahead and Linus can try those tools if he chooses.
I know RMS technically didn't force BitMover to revoke the free license, but he sure encouraged free software developers and OSDL in particular to show hostile attitude that led to that event. OSDL should have recognized that Linux is a more important project than reverse-engineering BitKeeper and told their employees not to do that on company time/servers or get fired.
This is not the first time RMS screwed things up. As I understand, he encouraged creation of Gnome because KDE was somehow not free enough for him. Now there is a massive duplication of effort when everyone could be working on making one thing better. The end effect of any zealot's actions is to hurt their own cause more than any enemy.
Thanks for explaining your reasons. I also dislike being foed with no explanation.
:) ) I've actually read a lot of what RMS has written in the past, and I agree with most of it. There is no reason why we should be restricted from doing anything we want with our computers. We are not restricted in using hammers and nails (compilers and linkers) with wood that we purchased (the PC itself) and our own ideas written down as a diagram (source code) to make a useful object like a chair (software). So why apply artifical financial barriers to software? The businesses that rely on profit from software will always be there because there are always some people who don't want to build their own software (or furniture). FOSS is not a problem. The people who want to control what we do with comptuers are.
My view is simply this: I should be allowed to do whatever I want to with my computer with no limitations except one. That limitation is to make sure that I am not negatively impacting anyone else. This is why I choose to use FOSS over proprietary software. I'm less interested in the political and philosophical squabbles involved. At the end of the day, the computer is a tool for me to accomplish whatever task is important to me. There should be no financial barriers to those tasks. As long as FOSS consinutes to provide viable alternatives to proprietary commercial software, I will lean towards FOSS. The software itself doesn't matter, it's what you can do with it.
My original post was actually just meant to be a "conversation starter". (Read flamebait.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
I'm pretty sure that the BitKeeper adventure has been, overall, good for kernel development. Linus and a lot of the others liked it, and felt productive using it.
More importantly, the switch to something else seems to go quite swiftly. git and cogito are already good enough to manage the kernel (if a little rough around the edges yet).
In other words, the price for dumping BitKeeper was pretty low. And so was the risk taken by using it.
And that's exactly the point of free software: nobody can take it away from you. That keeps the risk in using it low.
The risk and cost of using non-free software might be ok if you can live without it. But use free software for important stuff.
So many posts saying this or something similar, it's almost too frustrating to actually reply. Here I go...
It's absolutely possible to make money using free software, and make a very decent amount of money. Personally, I run a free software business in Germany. I recommend, install, and maintain free software for my customers -- big, well-paying corporations. I write free software for some of them, and I'm being paid for the software I write, just like any other worker is paid for the hours he spends working. It pays off tremendously well both for me, and the companies who employ me.
What the free software movement is against is to hide the source code of your software from the people who use it, just so you can make even more money out of it. But this is not necessary. The idea of the free software movement is a different economy where everybody can live well, and share what they know, and create. And this is possible economically, as I continue to experience every day.
Sorry, I just had to say it.
How many years did "the community" have to code a replacement for BK again? Does anyone think that Linus would not have switched to it in a heartbeat if it was "free as in everything" and did what he wanted? No. But where was it?
I love RMS. This is all McVoy's fault. "Look, the evil man has been defeated! yay Free Software!" I guess he forgot that no one held a gun to Linus' head to force him to use BK.
And the "GNU/Linux" name dropping? Classic.
Great stuff.
Einstein said: Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
The most rabid believers in American Exceptionalism are the exact same people whose policies are destroying it.
For the same reason you get to vote for your President. Do you want to be in control of your environment or do you want to trust someone? The Constitution provides an assurance that you will never have to blindly trust a leader, because in the end this trust is always broken.
Likewise for software - the GPL is an insurance policy against someone else controlling what happens on your computer in a way that requires your trust.
The reverse engineering wasn't done on company time or servers.
OK, take a deep breath. Good. Again.
Now, let's not freak out here. A volunteer programmer, by definition, will work towards their own agenda. If they listen to RMS, blame them for their own choice. RMS didn't drain their wills or twist their brains - they made their own choices.
Although I think you happen to be wrong in this case. I don't recall Bitkeeper being reverse engineered on company time as a factor in the decision to yank licensing, although I obviously don't know everything about it. If they did use company time it was inappropriate, but my understanding is it would have made no difference in the end.
I would say Gnome and KDE existing is a good thing - neither can get complacient. And since everyone seems to be having fun working on them (which is, after all, still the whole point of volunteer programming) I fail to see an issue.
You seem to be upset that open source developers aren't marching as an army to take over the world. Sorry, but that's not how it works, whatever the media would like to think. It's people having fun, and anything else beyond that is simply icing on the cake.
So let me get this straight. If I work hard, charge for the fruits of my labors, I'm the bad guy. Well that just puts every FOSS fan right in the same camp as my less savory former employers. "Why should I pay for what you're doing?"
"Why should I do it?"
"Because I pay you to."
"So your question was again?"
Except in the case of FOSS, the reason I should do it is because the users simply insist I should. WTF have they done for me lately? Stroked my ego? Read the docs I custom tailored to their intelligence level? Nope. "Code should be free!"
Fine, you invent it then. I won't write anything. I'll simply schlep others' code around, fixing your machines instead of improving on them.
No? Well then, pay me what I'm worth.
What I want to know is where did we suddenly decide that shareware should go the way of the dodo, and we instead of being upstanding and honorable decided to go with stingy grubbing, however open and honest the gimme gimme mentality is?
If you like to put out work for free, give it some protection, but otherwise let anyone use it for nothing, that's your right. I would do it myself in some situations. But Free != Good. Sometimes Free == Tyranny of the Mob.
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
We'll see Stallman going into MS with a bunch of C4 strapped to his chest.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur
Personally, I'd say that this is the first time I've really understood RMS's point of view, and agree with him.
While bitkeeper was "free as in beer", when someone pissed of Larry, he took away the whole software. Also for a long time he's said people haven't been able to use it if they work on competing products.
If it had been GPLed, then someone couldn't have decided to just withdraw the software just because some did something they didn't like. Now the kernel has been left in the lurch. This kind of thing is exactly what RMS has been telling us would happen for years, and this is the first time I've really seen it happen.
Combination - fun iPhone puzzling
...he withdrew permission for gratis use by free software projects
I don't recall reading this before, but let's assume that McVoy DID deny access to his software to people to whom he had once granted access.
THIS is the reason why non-free software, in its current form, is a scary thing. Most licenses can be modified at any time, without notice, by the licensor. Bill Gates could, in theory, tell the whole world tomorrow "You can no longer use Windows."
Stallman promotes four freedoms; of those, the freedom to run programs as you wish for any purpose is what most consumers are interested in. Consumers could EASILY be persuaded to pursue this freedom through the political process, since this is the one that, if abused, would affect them the most. We have here a classic case of abuse of this freedom: McVoy takes away access to his software that he had once granted.
I would have preferred to see RMS saying "See? SEE? THIS is why I emphasize freedom!I Instead of emphasizing this evidence, he berates those too foolish to believe his dogma. I place myself firmly in the camp of those who believe his dogma, but only because I have seen and believe the evidence that his dogma is correct. Burying that evidence, as he has done, does no one any good.
This for me is an important point. I may be an eccentric, I am certainly a slightly lapsed Quaker, but for me one of the most important things in an ethical business is price transparency.
Before any libertarian gets started, this is not an anti-business attitude. The object of stock markets, for instance, is to provide price transparency as well as liquidity. This is one of the things that makes markets trustworthy: things take place in the light of day, not by private agreement.
I do not have a problem with charging for software and support: I do believe that it should be standard business practice for software companies to have a clean and transparent pricing model so that it is possible both to compare products by TCO, and to know that by using XYZ software you are not paying through the nose while XYZ is doing a cheap deal with your competitor.
My beef with MS, for instance, is that I cannot buy Windows alone for the same price as buying it bundled with a PC, plus the belief that the price of the various Microsoft offerings is related to negotiating ability. It is not a level playing field, and this is probably worse than being a monopoly. A monopoly that screws everybody equally at least encourages everybody to look for a way round it, rather than seeking to produce power alignments that keep it in place.
By following this "the price is what you negotiate" approach. Bitkeeper cannot avoid the suspicion that people who advocate its use might be in a visible industry position and be getting a special deal.
To anyone who says that this is excessive idealism, I would suggest that I do not have a problem with price variation or special offers provided they are freely and openly advertised. I am not in favor of limiting the ability of companies to respond to market conditions. I am opposed to secret deals.
Anybody who questions this might compare the laser printer and copier markets. Historically printers have been engineer-driven and tend to sell to a price. Copiers have been salesman-driven and the vendors have tried to hide the real costs in complex leasing and contract details. It isn't surprising that, as buyers become more aware, power starts to shift to the printer manufacturers. Nobody likes copier vendors.
Scott Adams (who is an economist as well as the creator of Dilbert) has summed it up well by using the term "confusopolies" to describe the vendors of mobile phone contracts etc. who seek to conceal the true costs.
So, in summary: Bitkeeper's business practices as regards the cost of their products causes me not to want to buy them.
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
I create free software to:
( ) Stick it to the man.
( ) Promote my ideologies.
( ) Solve a problem.
( ) Enjoy myself.
( ) Enjoy CowboyNeal.
I suspect 3 and 4 are the top choices. RMS seems to think 2.
The masses are the crack whores of religion.
And yet, you think RMS is the bad guy. Wow.
I once asked RMS in a conference what he thought about products with a short shelf life value, like games. There are not too many ways to create a profit out of a game if you make it open source.
His answer was that in those cases they can have it closed source for a few months (3?) and then release it open source.
I guess a trend that might be possible today would be to have open source engines and pay-for content.
Reply . . . let's get it over with.
Even if you're fine with proprietary software, expecting open source programmers to stop doing what they do is not reasonable. If BitKeeper had something worth cloning, it would be cloned. In the meantime, Larry managed to bootstrap himself a company using the free advertising Linus gave him.
Since people keep saying the same things, I'll keep responding with the same too:
It's a bit silly to say 'I told you so" - especially since I didn't actually say it. I thought the arguments made by Linus had some logic behind it too (the technical-merit-before-anything-else approach). Often I thought both sides (Stallman and Linus) had some valuable viewpoint on it, and it was difficult to say who actually was right on the matter.
It seems now, after all, it was R.Stallman all along. Yes, Linus has a good point in chosing for technical superior alternatives...BUT, in the end, as is clearly shown now, you can't just devide the political/ideological/proprietary issue from the mere technical one. When push comes to shove, an alternative that isn't really free, isn't really an alternative. You are always dependend on the goodwill of whomever owns the product- even when buying it, I may add.
So, it would seem the viewpoint of Linus, in this instance, is the weaker one, because now he doesn't have a 'tecnological superior' product anymore, and what is he going to do? Go for another proprietary product, because it's technologically better? And have the same thing happen to him again? I don't think so. I think he learned his lesson, and he will go for the really free alternatives that R.Stallman suggested, which, albeit not as good, at least allow you to continue with it as you see fit.
Stallman can be a nag sometimes because of his gnu/linux diatribe, but in this instance, he was right.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
Linus Torvalds could say, tomorrow, that he revokes everyone's right to use the parts of the Linux kernel he wrote. That's his right as copyright holder.
No, he can't.
From the FAQ
Linus can redistribute code he has written under another license, but he cannot revoke the rights he has already provided. He can also make it so future releases are under a more restrictive license, but someone would just end up forking the last GPLed version.
A good example of this is XFree86. Version 4.4 was released under a more restrictive license that the community did not like. Next thing you know, the last 4.4 prerelease under the old license was forked as X.org.
RMS isn't in this to save money, he is in it to preserve freedoms that are important to him.
Linus is already working full time on free software under RMSes favorite license. Let him use Visual Studio, SourceSafe and Word ...
OSDL should have recognized that Linux is a more important project than reverse-engineering BitKeeper and told their employees not to do that on company time/servers or get fired.
Question: If Linus HAD been using VS, SourceSafe etc, and it had been Microsoft who had been pissed off about Tridge's reverse engineering of protocols, should OSDL have layed down the law against Tridge as well?
Should they have said "Linux is more important than Samba, so Tridge has to stop working on it to make sure that Linus can keep is Visual Studio license"? Since when does a proprietary software developer get to hold the community hostage by threatening to pull its licenses? How stupid do you have to be to consider that a good thing?
"Except you can do this with a GPL'ed program as well"
Read the licence. There is no provision for retroactive modification or revocation of the license. It is an outright grant of permission. It cannot be be withdrawn, because there is no basis in the license for doing so.
HOWEVER (and this is the point you seem to be making) an author may license his software to different people under different licenses. If I license my program to you under the GPL and to Apple under a Microsoft-style EULA, you will still have all the GPL rights granted to you. In fact, Apple could have gotten the software from you under the GPL (which is the only license YOU can distribute my program under, since you license it and do not own it). Apple could then distribute the software under the GPL (and the people who got it from Apple...ad infinitum), but Apple would be bound by the GPL with regard to modifications that they distribute. Apple doesn't like that, so they come to me with money and a request for a different license.
But no matter what happens between me and Apple, between me and you was the GPL. You still have the GPLed copy of my software, and if I go capitalistic nuts tomorrow and begin demanding $1000/day before I'll distribute any more copies of my program, you would still be able to use, copy, modify, and redistribute the copy of my program that I gave to you.
I realize at this point that I am arguing by repeated assertion, so I encourage you again to go read the license yourself. Note that there is NO basis for revocation or modification of the license. It is a contract, and American contract law doesn't permit unilateral modification of contracts. (If it did, I might modify my mortgage contract.)
Our RMS which art in free software, hallowed be thy name. Thy free software come. Thy will be done in free software as it is in free software. Give us this day our daily free software. And forgive us our use of non-free software, as we forgive them that create non-free software against us. And lead us not into temptation to use non-free software. But deliver us from non-free software. Amen.
Tridgell never ran Bitkeeper or downloaded it or any legal way came in contact with McVoy's license. He used standard UNIX tools to develop a way to access developer metadata that McVoy was (VERY improperly) laying claim to. Tridgell never had a copy of Bitkeeper so what code or license was being trampled on?
Nah, EMACS = Escape Meta Alt Control Shift
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
I like extremists. Not in the direct sense, but in a lot of other ways.
Firstly, they force me evaluate my own beliefs and principles. Why is democracy good? Why is Free Software worth bothering with? What could possibly be wrong with drinking alcohol?
Secondly, most movements in history was seen as radical or just plain whacky. Don't think you are allowed to sit at the front of the bus, woman. Oh no, the sun is clearly rotating around the earth, Mr. Astronomer. Without them, we would still be living in caves and killing our food with spears. No, not even spears, because that guy or gal probably got ridiculed a lot at first. We would be throwing rocks.
Third, the limits of our society are shaped by the extremes on each side of it -- the nuttier the sidelines, the more stable it is in the middle.
Also, some of these dudes are really entertaining, and it is always completely unintentionally...
However, a thing like this wouldn't have happened with Free Software. By that, I don't just mean something like the free software attitude would have prevented it or anything -- this would actually have been impossible if BitKeeper had been free software.
This is, of course, because even if McVoy had been the only developer and he decided to move to a non-free license for a new version for whatever reason, someone would just have had to fork it. Therefore, things like this cannot happen with free software.
The same, of course, goes with all proprietary software. Now, I don't believe that Microsoft will go out of business anytime soon (no matter how much I'd want it to), but imagine if it did! Suddenly, Windows would be completely unsupported and would never be developed further. Smaller companies can probably go bankrupt for lesser things than that. With GNU/Linux, that literally cannot happen. Someone will always go on working on it, and even if noone does voluntarily, you can always hire someone to do so.
The fact that you and many others have a problem with "This whole 'ethical' line of argumentation" vs. a "mainstram economic argument" is probably the biggest single reason we have debacles ranging from the Enron debacle to the scandal plaguing the Canadian government at present. Please explain how an economic argument "holds more water" than an ethical/ideological one.
/. discussion so I had to add it).
It doesn't matter what sort of political or economic philospohy you subscribe to, when pure economics takes precedence over "ethics" then the said economic or political system becomes corrupt and vulnerable to collapse. Slavery did not end in America because someone had a convincing "mainstram economic argument" against it. Nazi Germany did not fall because it had an inferior economy. We triumphed over both because they were morally reprehensible (sorry, but I didn't spot the pre-requisite reverence to Nazis in this
I recently came across an interesting example of a compelling argument for "ethics" in business. The "Chik-fil-A" fast-food chain was founded and is headed by a very conservative, evangelical Christian. This man and much of the staff wear their religion on their sleeves, and unlike most visible personalities of the "religious right" they seem to actually practise whay they preach--their beliefs, faith, religous observances and family are of the highest priority--more so tham profits. The head of this company insists on not doing business on Sunday and on directing a portion of profits towards philanthropic activities as a sort of "tithe". While I do not subscribe to his brand of religious conservatism, I respect him highly for following his beliefs because they are the "right thing to do" even when there was no "mainstram economic" argument to do so. It is in some way like Google's well-known policy (at least in this forum) to "do no evil".
The result? Chik-fil-A has undergone rapid growth and has virtually the best employee retention and customer satisfaction in the industry. And we all know how Google turned out.
As for the maturity exhibited by the "unbunched panties of the BSD community"--what has that achieved for them? The many variants of BSD are certainly excellent from a technical perspective and are popular for web hosting and security, but there is a reason for the "BSD is dead" jokes--it is invisible to the general public and has no presence at all on the desktop. RMS and others might come across as wingnuts at times, but it is their dedication to ther beliefs and their inthusiasm for the free software movement that has made GNU/Linux as successful as it is.
You may view RMS' idealism as giving ammo to the opposition, but I prefer to think of it as a kevlar vest. The key is to stick to your principles while being informed and aware so you don't shoot yourself in the foot.
EMACS = Eight Megabytes And Constantly Swapping Fortunately newer computers can run it easily now. I suspect most people that have worked as unix admins know vi, mostly because it was already on the computer.
==
Wouldn't that be EMACSF?
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
Free is better if it's available, meets the user requirements, and the overall costs of the non-free - dollars, political, and otherwise - don't exceed the benefit.
Any state where non-free is preferable is usually and should be an unstable state:
Either free software will be made, and non-free will no longer be preferred, or free software will be made and the non-free software will improve, so the new, better non-free software becomes preferred.
In the free market, the "more cost effective" product will carry the day. Non-Free products carry several costs, including political costs - particularly when it's a tool used for FOSS-development, the cost of not being able to modify the source when needed, and the costs of vendor lock-in. These, plus licensing fees if any, must be weighed when deciding to use non-free software.
In this context, free is as in freedom, not as in beer.
I think Linux was right to use BitKeeper at the time he made the decision. I think he was wrong to discourage the use of Tridge's work, but given the aftermath, he was right to move to an open-source solution. The time is ripe to use an open-source code management system for the Linux Kernel. One could easily argue this work should've been started a year or two ago.
By the way, there's still non-free code being used to develop Linux, albeit indectly and not under the control of the developers:
When a developer checks in code, his code travels over routers, some of which use non-FOSS code. I'm sure there are many such examples of how non-FOSS code is used to further the Linux kernel.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Every decision, business or otherwise, involves ethics in one form or another.
It is ethics that guides us and such qualities which define us, and, of course, what we produce.
Clearly, those who do not understand the ethics involved, cannot hope to actually understand the underlying issues involved.
Indeed, those who oppose openess do so for unethical reasons.
Words to men, as air to birds.
And post on slashdot the number of minutes it takes for him to stop laughing his ass of.
What have you accomplished in your life? Is it even remotely comparable to what RMS has?
Akarsz Magyar Gentoo fórumot? Akkor
There are people who still maintain, track, and use the Linux 2.2 kernels, even to this day. There are also people who make linux distributions that are stripped right down to the bare minimum, and then add software on as needed.
As a platform for millions of dollars worth of software, this is the only sane way to go.
As for MS extended support? They offer it for some things, not others. And it's very expensive. FOSS OS's would help the Air Force mitigate the long-term expense of keeping their mini-linux distro up to date, because other groups (probably within the government itself!) would be working on similar problems.
Slashdot. It's Not For Common Sense
It's actually Extensible MACroS. Or Emacs Makes A Computer Slow... that's my favorite. In soviet russia computer makes emacs slow... ah.
My other car is first.
Some people have to work for a living unfortunately since money does not grow on trees and we don't all have rich parents and we cannot all live on welfare.
Software is worth paying for if it performs the job well and is easy to use. I'm sorry but most OSS have craptastic UI's and no offline documentation. Some software does not even have up to date documentation online.
Many of those proprietary software companies (Apple, Adobe etc...) employ usability experts to test the functionality of the UI. They know what works and what does not. You are not going to see many programmers with a knack for UI design working on an Open Source project. They are motivated by "scratching their own itch" rather than creating software for the public at large.
Can you honestly say that you would spend your own valuable time developing a useful UI for everyone to use when a "good enough" craptastic interface only you can understand would suffice?
Where is the motivation to create a better UI for other people?
I grew up poor and so I understand the value of a dollar and the value of work.
Don't give me that "freedom" and "free speech" bullshit. I can exercise my freedom and free speech by releasing software as a closed source binary if I so choose. If I do not provide adequate documentation, a good UI and value added features, people may choose to use an OSS alternative. It's called competition people. If I can provide a better user experience and functionality, I should be able to expect monetary compensation for my efforts.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
BitKeeper is not "open source." Nobody ever got the source outside of Larry McVoy's company.
Wrong. BitKeeper originally was open source, and many Bitmover clients even now have the source under NDI. The situation changed for the majority of people because too many started breaking the license agreement, and Bitmover were forced to diminish rights because of this - they'd rather spend their money on engineers than lawyers.
Matt
Linus cannot revoke the license for Linux. He can't even change them, because he is not the only copyright holder. The copyright is held by a few thousand individual developers (and a few companies) who each have to agree to licenses changes, or their code removed before the license can change.
I use Pico. Emacs is my therapist.
He's talking about the kernel, hence he respects the name it was given--Linux. He asks people to do the same when speaking of the OS in which the Linux kernel is most commonly used so that both projects get a share of the credit--GNU/Linux.
Time to read the GNU/Linux naming FAQ, perhaps.
Digital Citizen
Anyway.. So far Red Hat has been working on compiling the parts of OOo that do work (or can be made to work) with GCJ for shipping with their distro. I suspect Debian and so on will do something similar. So in that sense, it's already forked.
Actually that could end up being quite good. It's possible the pressure to use OO2.0 on a totalyl Free system might well be the impetus required to really beef up GCJ! So in that sense it could end up being quite beneficial that OO2.0 has a mcuh stronger dependancy on Java.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
And yes, I understand it's a perfectly valid tool when you want your software to be less freely usable, but that's not the path I choose, maybe because I don't view people that want to sell software as evil and I value their contribution to the further development of my code regardless of their motivations or benefit from that.
Is it more practical to settle into one version control system and use it over a long period of time, or to shift between proprietary version control systems that flake out from underenath you and require you to change systems on THIER terms, not yours?
That is pretty much at the heart of what RMS is trying to say, all the time. That ultimatley the only "Practical" software is software YOU control, not another company.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Yes. Let's not forget that this is the man who, seeing the need for free software, first started to write the compiler with which to build free software. A more "reasonable" person might have said that "Ah, the development tool chain isn't that important, it's the code that actually gets work done that is. Let's depend on a proprietary compiler for now, after all, the interface to it (i.e. the language) is portable and consistent between vendors".
But not Stallman. He's not one to back down from difficulty. As a result we now have a very capable free tool chain (gcc, gdb, glibc, gmake, flex, bison etc).
I'd say he's got his priorities straight.
Stefan Axelsson
Many enterprise software companies have a considerable market power, even when they have competitors, and so they act accordingly. One thing such companies do is price discrimination. There is no one price. Witness Oracle. They won't tell you the price outright on their web site (when they do it's usually an upper bound, above the price many companies pay). They'll look at you and then try to estimate how much cash you have. They won't attempt to have the cash that you don't have but they WILL try to extract as much of your cash as possible through licensing and support fees.