BitMover gave out free copies of their proprietary software with the understanding that it would not be reverse engineered to create a competing product. Tridge violated that agreement. Apparently Linus believes (and personally, I agree with him), that what Tridge is doing is unethical, even if it is legal. It's a case of biting the hand that feeds you.
If McVoy thinks that reverse-engineering is so 'dishonest', then why did he offer to give free tools to a worldwide project whose primary focus is to reverse-engineering an entire OS?
I'm assuming the "project" in question is the Linux kernel. Well, I'm sorry, but Linux isn't about reverse-engineering an entire OS. Which OS do they mean, anyway? Unix or Windows? In either case, they're wrong. The Linux kernel is not developed by reverse engineering some other operating system. With the exception of a couple device drivers that were designed by reverse engineering their Windows counterparts, it's completely original development. Sure, it has Unix-like behavior, but that isn't gleaned by reverse engineering.
Sounds to me like the article author has a overly broad definition of "reverse engineering".
So what kind of consultation would you expect from a chip designer? I really can't imagine any of the hardware people providing any meaningful consulting services, except to other hardware people.
I propose that trade secrets should not be something that is protected by law. Sure, people signing NDAs should be bound by their contracts, but if someone who hasn't signed an NDA obtains some kind of trade secret, then that's just too bad. The company can prosecute the NDA signer for breech of contract, but that's it.
So you're saying that Tridge has been secretly using someone else's BK server, and to this day, no one but Tridge knows whose BK server it is? I don't believe it.
I read that document, and I'm still not convinced. In that document, he basically says that he uses the tool with which he's trying to interoperate with. Using the example, BK is the French Waiter. He had to have a BK system running somewhere that he interacted with, in order to learn the BK protocol. That contradicts with his statement that he didn't use BK at all.
At best, BitMover would be able to terminate your license. But they can't really terminate licenses on a whim, because the user is complying with the license to the best of his ability.
Not neccessarily. What if the owner of the BK server knowingly allows Tridge to connect to it? Violations of contract law are usually followed by lawsuits and a lot of money in damages.
If the server does not provide tools for preventing non-authorized clients from connecting, I highly doubt the license is enforceable. Doing this is impossible, since how could it know whether or not a client is authorized?
This is a legal problem, not a technical one. If my door lock fails to prevent you from breaking into my house, does that mean that you're allowed to steal my TV?
He's connecting to a server. One does not generally have to agree to a license to do so.
Not true. If the license of the server says that only authorized clients are allowed to connect, then the person who installed/admins the server is violating the license if he allows non-authorized clients.
So if Tridge is usin his unauthorized client to connect to a BK server, then someone is definitely violating the license.
I expect that in the future I will be able to give a more detailed response, but for now I can only tell you the following:
In late February I wrote a tool that is interoperable with BitKeeper. The aim was to provide export to other source code management tools and provide a useful tool to the community.
I did not use BitKeeper at all in writing this tool and thus was never subject to the BitKeeper license. I developed the tool in a completely ethical and legal manner.
I'm sorry, but there is no way to write "a tool that is interoperable with BitKeeper" without using BitKeeper. How in the world did he test his tool? How does he know it's interoperable? Well, the only way is to actually try it. Which means his comment "I did not use BitKeeper at all" is a completely lie.
Recent news stories report that Microsoft may design their own chips for the Xbox 2 design.
Highly unlikely. They would need to hire a bunch of chip designers, who would work on it for years. We would have heard about it by now, if they had chosen this route.
I'm not just talking about how much RAM and disk space it needs, I'm talking about what platforms it runs on. PC? Mac? Xbox? I don't have a PC, so I'd like to know if there's even a chance I can play this game. Since it's an MMO game, I doubt it, but it would still be nice if they told people.
Has anyone noticed that it's pretty difficult these days to find out what the system requirements are for games? That information used to be plastered on the home page and everywhere else, but these days it's like trying to pull teeth.
I searched the ddo.com web site, and I just can't find any info on this.
You know, I'm just not going to believe that. I know it's your anecdotal evidence vs. mine, but when something like 90% of the word processing market uses MS Word, it's really hard to claim any subset of that market doesn't use MS Word.
A contractor is not someone that has an "indirect business association" with his client. When a contractor does work for a client, the client can get into a lot of trouble if the contractor violates an agreement the client company had with another company.
Look at the situation Wal-Mart was in when it was discovered that some of their cleaning crew were illegal aliens. Wal-Mart hires contracting firms to keep its stores cleaned. One of these firms knowingly hired illegal aliens. Wal-Mart executives knew that this was happening. Wal-Mart was punished because of their complicity with the crime. Similarly, OSDL is being punished for their complicity with the person violating the contract.
Unfortunately, it's not just OSDL that's being punished. The entire open source community is being punished for OSDL's actions, because now no one can use BK for free. Obviously, OSDL didn't give a damn about other open source developers who were happy to agree with BK's license.
There's nothing slimy about the license. BitMover provided a free version of their product, which costs them $500K/year to develop and support, in exchange for a promise not to use BK to develop a competing product. What's wrong with that?
If BitMover had never provided a free version in the first place, no one would be complaining! Yet now we have a bunch of schmucks who are upset because it's only partially free. If you don't like the license, then just don't use the product. BitMover's license was very reasonable.
Are OSDL employees allowed to call the ambulance if they see this guy bleeding to death on the street, or is that forbidden too (on account of aiding/facilitating further reverse engineering of BitKeeper)?
Now you're just being stupid. The agreement that BitMover made with OSDL was very benign, and you're making it sound as if they wanted someone's first-born in exchange.
Contractor or employee, doesn't matter. The company does not own you.
Give me a break. The company may not own you, but they're still allowed to impose various reasonable restrictions on what you do, even on your own time. Look at all the people who have been fired for blogging about their employer?
The better question, did he know he was undermining it?
Yes, he did. The article said that BitMover had discussions with OSDL about the contractor, and even after OSDL said they would put an end to it, the continued to allow him to do the work. They tried to hide behind the "he's a contractor working on his own time" bit, but BitMover didn't buy it. Because of OSDL's greed, now no one gets to have a free version of BK. Thanks for nothing, assholes!
First of all, he was a contractor, not an employee. Secondly, this individual was undermining an agreement that his client had with another company. That's always a stupid thing to do.
OSDL should have made the contractor sign an NDA that said the contractor would not violate any agreement that OSDL had with any other company. That's par for the course with contractors. When I was a contractor, I signed similar agreements.
The end result is that OSDL's actions have forced BitMover into taking away the best tool the Linux community had for version control. Nothing else even comes close to BK for what Linus was doing. OSDL has hurt the open source community, not helped it. We used to have a free version of BK to use for our projects, but thanks to OSDL, we don't any more.
BitMover's agreement basically says "not only can't you develop a competing product, but if you pay anybody who does or offer them any assistance or do anything other than kick the hell out of them, we're through".
Exactly. OSDL and BitMoover had an agreement, and OSDL violated it. That makes OSDL the "bad guys".
Even if you think they didn't violate the letter of the contract, they definitely violated the spirit of it. IMHO, that's just as bad, if not worse.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, but I seriously doubt Tridge was willing to work with BitMover (and withint BitMover's restrictions) on satisfying that need.
I would not call a review of only 10 items "massive".
BitMover gave out free copies of their proprietary software with the understanding that it would not be reverse engineered to create a competing product. Tridge violated that agreement. Apparently Linus believes (and personally, I agree with him), that what Tridge is doing is unethical, even if it is legal. It's a case of biting the hand that feeds you.
If McVoy thinks that reverse-engineering is so 'dishonest', then why did he offer to give free tools to a worldwide project whose primary focus is to reverse-engineering an entire OS?
I'm assuming the "project" in question is the Linux kernel. Well, I'm sorry, but Linux isn't about reverse-engineering an entire OS. Which OS do they mean, anyway? Unix or Windows? In either case, they're wrong. The Linux kernel is not developed by reverse engineering some other operating system. With the exception of a couple device drivers that were designed by reverse engineering their Windows counterparts, it's completely original development. Sure, it has Unix-like behavior, but that isn't gleaned by reverse engineering.
Sounds to me like the article author has a overly broad definition of "reverse engineering".
So what kind of consultation would you expect from a chip designer? I really can't imagine any of the hardware people providing any meaningful consulting services, except to other hardware people.
College kids are poor, so what did you expect?
I agree 100%.
I propose that trade secrets should not be something that is protected by law. Sure, people signing NDAs should be bound by their contracts, but if someone who hasn't signed an NDA obtains some kind of trade secret, then that's just too bad. The company can prosecute the NDA signer for breech of contract, but that's it.
I think you just made my point for me.
So you're saying that Tridge has been secretly using someone else's BK server, and to this day, no one but Tridge knows whose BK server it is? I don't believe it.
I read that document, and I'm still not convinced. In that document, he basically says that he uses the tool with which he's trying to interoperate with. Using the example, BK is the French Waiter. He had to have a BK system running somewhere that he interacted with, in order to learn the BK protocol. That contradicts with his statement that he didn't use BK at all.
Not neccessarily. What if the owner of the BK server knowingly allows Tridge to connect to it? Violations of contract law are usually followed by lawsuits and a lot of money in damages.
This is a legal problem, not a technical one. If my door lock fails to prevent you from breaking into my house, does that mean that you're allowed to steal my TV?
Not true. If the license of the server says that only authorized clients are allowed to connect, then the person who installed/admins the server is violating the license if he allows non-authorized clients.
So if Tridge is usin his unauthorized client to connect to a BK server, then someone is definitely violating the license.
I expect that in the future I will be able to give a more detailed response, but for now I can only tell you the following:
I'm sorry, but there is no way to write "a tool that is interoperable with BitKeeper" without using BitKeeper. How in the world did he test his tool? How does he know it's interoperable? Well, the only way is to actually try it. Which means his comment "I did not use BitKeeper at all" is a completely lie.
Highly unlikely. They would need to hire a bunch of chip designers, who would work on it for years. We would have heard about it by now, if they had chosen this route.
I'm not just talking about how much RAM and disk space it needs, I'm talking about what platforms it runs on. PC? Mac? Xbox? I don't have a PC, so I'd like to know if there's even a chance I can play this game. Since it's an MMO game, I doubt it, but it would still be nice if they told people.
I searched the ddo.com web site, and I just can't find any info on this.
You know, I'm just not going to believe that. I know it's your anecdotal evidence vs. mine, but when something like 90% of the word processing market uses MS Word, it's really hard to claim any subset of that market doesn't use MS Word.
Look at the situation Wal-Mart was in when it was discovered that some of their cleaning crew were illegal aliens. Wal-Mart hires contracting firms to keep its stores cleaned. One of these firms knowingly hired illegal aliens. Wal-Mart executives knew that this was happening. Wal-Mart was punished because of their complicity with the crime. Similarly, OSDL is being punished for their complicity with the person violating the contract.
Unfortunately, it's not just OSDL that's being punished. The entire open source community is being punished for OSDL's actions, because now no one can use BK for free. Obviously, OSDL didn't give a damn about other open source developers who were happy to agree with BK's license.
If BitMover had never provided a free version in the first place, no one would be complaining! Yet now we have a bunch of schmucks who are upset because it's only partially free. If you don't like the license, then just don't use the product. BitMover's license was very reasonable.
Are OSDL employees allowed to call the ambulance if they see this guy bleeding to death on the street, or is that forbidden too (on account of aiding/facilitating further reverse engineering of BitKeeper)?
Now you're just being stupid. The agreement that BitMover made with OSDL was very benign, and you're making it sound as if they wanted someone's first-born in exchange.
Give me a break. The company may not own you, but they're still allowed to impose various reasonable restrictions on what you do, even on your own time. Look at all the people who have been fired for blogging about their employer?
The better question, did he know he was undermining it?
Yes, he did. The article said that BitMover had discussions with OSDL about the contractor, and even after OSDL said they would put an end to it, the continued to allow him to do the work. They tried to hide behind the "he's a contractor working on his own time" bit, but BitMover didn't buy it. Because of OSDL's greed, now no one gets to have a free version of BK. Thanks for nothing, assholes!
First of all, he was a contractor, not an employee. Secondly, this individual was undermining an agreement that his client had with another company. That's always a stupid thing to do.
The end result is that OSDL's actions have forced BitMover into taking away the best tool the Linux community had for version control. Nothing else even comes close to BK for what Linus was doing. OSDL has hurt the open source community, not helped it. We used to have a free version of BK to use for our projects, but thanks to OSDL, we don't any more.
Exactly. OSDL and BitMoover had an agreement, and OSDL violated it. That makes OSDL the "bad guys".
Even if you think they didn't violate the letter of the contract, they definitely violated the spirit of it. IMHO, that's just as bad, if not worse.