Yes, he did. He used the BitKeeper software when his client sent data to, and retrieved data from the BitKeeper server software.
Or are you going to suggest that this isn't really use? If so, then you've got a lot of people (such as Novell, IBM, and Microsoft) that disagree with you.
And the nonsense keeps flowing...
Are you suggesting that by visiting a website running off of IIS, you are *using IIS* and are legally bound by its license? (You are sending data to it, and receiving data from it. You are giving it commands, telling it to do things; and it complies.)
If so, I guess a full 100% of web surfing population around the whole world requires an IIS license from Microsoft.
Nobody, not even Larry, seemed to be suggesting that programmers using the BitKeeper-CVS gateway (same sort of "usage", just with different intent) were in fact licensees of BitKeeper... in fact the whole damn program was written because programmers refused to become beholden to BitMover.
Think of it this way. Your employer or company you contract with has an agreement that their employees or contractors won't do X with their software. Contractor/employee knows this. Contractor does X. Is this ethical? Debate:)
This did not happen.
OSDL "agreed" to not use BitKeeper for reverse engineering. Tridge did not use BitKeeper **AT ALL**.
And the reverse-engineering that he did was not of the type (take apart the program to figure out the source code) that Larry McVoy keeps trying to misrepresent Tridge's efforts as.
Ethics are hard to nail down, but Linus clearly believes that if someone gives you a gift, you don't bend them over and ram them up the rear for their generosity, even if it's perfectly legal for you to do so.
What the hell are you talking about??
Tridge was not given a gift.
Tridge tried to reverse-engineer the network protocols used by bitkeeper, without using a copy of bitkeeper.
Perhaps you should say that your more ideological colleagues will bite you in the ass.
It still seems like you are missing the point.
It was a known (and acknowledged) fact BitMover could at any point change terms in unacceptable ways for Linux developers. Some people (Linux included) just didn't think this was worth worrying about.
RMS knew better, he tried to convince others. Now we see clear as day that he was right to worry. Even if you want to pretend this is RMS' fault (an incredulous stretch), that still doesn't make him any less right.
And anyways... why do you act as though "ideology" is a dirty word?
Linus used BitKeeper despite its closed source/free use license because it was THE BEST TOOL FOR THE JOB. Linus defends other developers choice of license because it's their choice.
Linus, thank $DEITY, is no ESR.
The person you should be referencing is RMS. And the correct phrase would be:
A pity that Linus does not think more like RMS.
RMS and others said, "Don't rely on non-free software--it may bite us in the ass down the road." And GUESS WHAT? It did bite them in the ass!
I think you missed the third one, Do you find that technology companies spend millions of dollars to mis-inform their potential customers about the true value of their products.
Hi hi.;-) That one is a resounding Yes!. Thanks for pointing it out.
The only TLD that even makes sense to add at this point is to add.phd,.mba,etc. for accredited university graduates.
Why do you feel that makes sense? I don't mean to be argumentative, but am seriously curious. IT is probably *the* field where degrees should matter least. So I thought it strange to read this suggestion on slashdot.
You must have a fascinating moral paradigm, in some sense of the word ``fascinating''.
I do. Thank you.
That sounds like fraud, which we have laws against.
Gently guiding uninformed customers into vendor lock in is not fraud, but neither is it praise-worthy. Yes, yes, the customer is at fault... stupid people deserve to suffer... alas, one ought not write off the vast majority of the general populace.
The political process is about stealing from the productive (since they're the only ones who have anything to take), and giving to the many or to the powerful. Some contries which have carried that to its logical conclusion include present-day Zimbabwe, the Soviet Union, Germany during the 1930s and '40s, and most of Africa and South America during most of the last century.
Whereas America is the land of the free, the brave, and the benevolent capitalist that hides chocolate eggs under your pillow once a year.
If we have fair, constitutional laws, corporations will be able to enrich their shareholders only by making their customers better off.
Add to that "if those laws are properly enforced" and I'm in perfect agreement... and yet, your commentary seems to neither relate to my post that you replied to nor the present-day reality of your beloved country.
Licenses pushing a corporate agenda aren't really any worse than the GPL which pushes a political agenda.
You must have a fascinating moral paradigm.
I, for one, think that political agendas that aim to benefit people at large (and have a track record of success at doing so) are less immoral than corporate agendas that seek to enrich their investors at the expense of unwitting customers.
the next statement from Torvalds underscores a theme on why we should not place Torvalds in the position of "posterboy" for a long-term movement
Linus' stance has been progressively more disappointing on this issue. He doesn't seem to understand the deepest significance of his own software-offspring Linux: Freedom.
This does not, in my mind, greatly detract from his virtues as a programmer. But I will read his stances on Free Software issues with considerably more grains of salt in the future.
I think that it's fair to say that this is the first time in history that people everywhere else see America whining about its inability to compete.
One ought, of course, note that America has existed for only a rather short period of History thus far.
In that light, the quoted statement is really just a rather bland observation... unless of course you are so devoid of historical perspective that you think America is somehow special and will not fade like all previous empires.
In times past, the American workforce was something to admire. I don't think that's the case any longer.
That might have had something to do with having non-bombed-to-pieces infrastructure and a greater abundance of non-dead men than its European counter-parts after WW2.
Though I suppose it also might have been one of a host of heroic inimitable virtues that only Americans possess in the world.
Urgh... can't decide whether to be opinionated or ironic.
Have you already forgotten the bitkeeper fiasco? The intelligent people that point out when software is "not free enough" eventually turn out to be right.
Also, you are confusing the two meanings of the heteronym 'free'.
Freeware has nothing to do with freedom, only price. A for-fee but free-as-in-freedom program is preferable in the FSF paradigm to a freeware but proprietary one.
So no, "it" does not need to stop. People need to educate themselves. Ignorance is not a virtue, and so should not be accommodated.
"BitMover provided a free version of their product... in exchange for a promise not to use BK to develop a competing product."
Provided their free version to OSDL. Right? So why is OSDL getting punished because of some guy they have an indirect business association with?
The point is that the guy is not an employee, and is not doing the "offending work" under payment from OSDL. Paying him money for unrelated work seems no more wrong than calling him an ambulance. Is this guy a fugitive that no assistance can be rendered unto him?
Slashdot Mirror
Is there a legal basis for what you are suggesting? Or is this wishful thinking on BitMover's part?
Are you suggesting that by visiting a website running off of IIS, you are *using IIS* and are legally bound by its license? (You are sending data to it, and receiving data from it. You are giving it commands, telling it to do things; and it complies.)
If so, I guess a full 100% of web surfing population around the whole world requires an IIS license from Microsoft.
Nobody, not even Larry, seemed to be suggesting that programmers using the BitKeeper-CVS gateway (same sort of "usage", just with different intent) were in fact licensees of BitKeeper... in fact the whole damn program was written because programmers refused to become beholden to BitMover.
So... what on earth are you talking about?
OSDL "agreed" to not use BitKeeper for reverse engineering. Tridge did not use BitKeeper **AT ALL**.
And the reverse-engineering that he did was not of the type (take apart the program to figure out the source code) that Larry McVoy keeps trying to misrepresent Tridge's efforts as.
Tridge was not given a gift.
Tridge tried to reverse-engineer the network protocols used by bitkeeper, without using a copy of bitkeeper.
Ethics are hard to nail down? In this case WTF??
It was a known (and acknowledged) fact BitMover could at any point change terms in unacceptable ways for Linux developers. Some people (Linux included) just didn't think this was worth worrying about.
RMS knew better, he tried to convince others. Now we see clear as day that he was right to worry. Even if you want to pretend this is RMS' fault (an incredulous stretch), that still doesn't make him any less right.
And anyways... why do you act as though "ideology" is a dirty word?
A pity that Linus does not think more like RMS.
RMS and others said, "Don't rely on non-free software--it may bite us in the ass down the road." And GUESS WHAT? It did bite them in the ass!
Everyone say after me: RMS was right.
Yes. Your stupidest assumption must be the truth. Telling, I suppose.
Do you find the client contacts to technology companies are usually well-informed and make thoughtful and intelligent decisions.
Do you find that technology companies go out of their way to ensure that they do not take advantage of their client contacts' ignorance?
From my experience, I'd have to say a firm No! to both questions; hence "unwitting".
Adieu
It's in the English language, not in American. ;-)
I, for one, think that political agendas that aim to benefit people at large (and have a track record of success at doing so) are less immoral than corporate agendas that seek to enrich their investors at the expense of unwitting customers.
Linus' stance has been progressively more disappointing on this issue. He doesn't seem to understand the deepest significance of his own software-offspring Linux: Freedom.
This does not, in my mind, greatly detract from his virtues as a programmer. But I will read his stances on Free Software issues with considerably more grains of salt in the future.
You're right. The benefit of some high-profile foreigners should outweigh the benefit to a billion locals.
I think that it's fair to say that this is the first time in history that people everywhere else see America whining about its inability to compete.
One ought, of course, note that America has existed for only a rather short period of History thus far.
In that light, the quoted statement is really just a rather bland observation... unless of course you are so devoid of historical perspective that you think America is somehow special and will not fade like all previous empires.
In times past, the American workforce was something to admire. I don't think that's the case any longer.
That might have had something to do with having non-bombed-to-pieces infrastructure and a greater abundance of non-dead men than its European counter-parts after WW2.
Though I suppose it also might have been one of a host of heroic inimitable virtues that only Americans possess in the world.
Urgh... can't decide whether to be opinionated or ironic.
Modded by codemonkeys or luddites though. %)
Yeah, because we all know that the best metric for software isn't support, quality, price (or a ratio of the previous)...
It's bullshit political ideology, of course!
No, only some of us know that.
Have you already forgotten the bitkeeper fiasco? The intelligent people that point out when software is "not free enough" eventually turn out to be right.
Also, you are confusing the two meanings of the heteronym 'free'.
Freeware has nothing to do with freedom, only price. A for-fee but free-as-in-freedom program is preferable in the FSF paradigm to a freeware but proprietary one.
So no, "it" does not need to stop. People need to educate themselves. Ignorance is not a virtue, and so should not be accommodated.
I think corporations should be entitled to the same rights and privileges as private citizens.
;-)
How psychopathic.
And how utterly disturbing that this was moderated insightful.
Hello, Fascism!
I prefer X.org over XFree86 because it includes a bug fix which prevents it from crashing my system.
But what is your real motivation?
Surely there is a measure of difference between something against the law and something in breech of a contract.
And I don't see why OSDL is at fault for BitMover throwing a hissy fit and taking the ball home.
Yes, I did use hyperbole.
... in exchange for a promise not to use BK to develop a competing product."
"BitMover provided a free version of their product
Provided their free version to OSDL. Right? So why is OSDL getting punished because of some guy they have an indirect business association with?
The point is that the guy is not an employee, and is not doing the "offending work" under payment from OSDL. Paying him money for unrelated work seems no more wrong than calling him an ambulance. Is this guy a fugitive that no assistance can be rendered unto him?
Errr... terribly sorry. I guess this is what happens when ironic replies remain long after the stupid one gets modded to oblivion. %)