The new restrictions on Bitkeeper, saying that people who contribute to CVS or Subversion and even companies that distribute them cannot even run Bitkeeper, have sparked outrage. While these specific restrictions are new, their spirit fits perfectly with the previous Bitkeeper license.
The spirit of the Bitkeeper license is the spirit of the whip hand. It is the spirit that says, "You have no right to use Bitkeeper, only temporary privileges that we can revoke. Be grateful that we allow you to use Bitkeeper. Be grateful, and don't do anything we dislike, or we may revoke those privileges." It is the spirit of proprietary software. Every non-free license is designed to control the users more or less. Outrage at this spirit is the reason for the free software movement. (By contrast, the open source movement prefers to play down this same outrage.)
If the latest outrage brings the spirit of the non-free Bitkeeper license into clear view, perhaps that will be enough to convince the developers of Linux to stop using Bitkeeper for Linux development. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
On Sun, 13 Oct 2002, Richard Stallman wrote: > If the latest outrage brings the spirit of the non-free Bitkeeper > license into clear view, perhaps that will be enough to convince the > developers of Linux to stop using Bitkeeper for Linux development.
What would be even better is if it convinced free software people to develop a tool as good as, or better than, Bitkeeper.
Until such a tool exists I'll tolerate Bitkeeper's licensing, since my use of bitkeeper seems to increase rather than decrease the amount of free software that's available.
On Sun, Oct 13, 2002 at 06:48:22PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote: > The new restrictions on Bitkeeper, saying that people who contribute > to CVS or Subversion and even companies that distribute them cannot > even run Bitkeeper, have sparked outrage. While these specific
Outrage == non kernel hacking related flamewar. I was not particularly happy with that fluff flying across the list (and quickly procmailed that thread to /dev/null), and I'm not particularly happy with your new message on that subject appearing here. In fact, I had my own questions about BK, and I prudently directed them elsewhere.
Please keep traffic on this list technical in nature. If you've got actual code or a discussion thereof to post, I'd be happy to see it.
1) No free licenses for our competition, they can buy them if they like. 2) The software is not open source because the open source business model doesn't have a prayer of supporting the development costs. 3) If you had built a decent system instead of sitting around and whining, we could be doing something else instead of sitting around listening to your whining.
On Sun, Oct 13, 2002 at 06:48:22PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote: > The new restrictions on Bitkeeper, saying that people who contribute > to CVS or Subversion and even companies that distribute them cannot > even run Bitkeeper, have sparked outrage. > restrictions are new, their spirit fits perfectly with the previous > Bitkeeper license.
> The spirit of the Bitkeeper license is the spirit of the whip hand. > It is the spirit that says, "You have no right to use Bitkeeper, only > temporary privileges that we can revoke. Be grateful that we allow > you to use Bitkeeper. Be grateful, and don't do anything we dislike, > or we may revoke those privileges." It is the spirit of proprietary > software. Every non-free license is designed to control the users > more or less. Outrage at this spirit is the reason for the free > software movement. (By contrast, the open source movement prefers to > play down this same outrage.)
> If the latest outrage brings the spirit of the non-free Bitkeeper > license into clear view, perhaps that will be enough to convince the > developers of Linux to stop using Bitkeeper for Linux development. > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Sun, 13 Oct 2002 18:48:22 -0400: Richard Stallman (Richard Stallman <r...@gnu.org>):
> The new restrictions on Bitkeeper, saying that people who contribute > to CVS or Subversion and even companies that distribute them cannot > even run Bitkeeper, have sparked outrage. While these specific > restrictions are new, their spirit fits perfectly with the previous > Bitkeeper license.
I would think that if there were a list of people who shouldn't need to be told "If you don't like licensing, build a better replacement", RMS would be at the top of that list- After all, isn't that why GNU was made?
The GNU foundation has given the world MANY good GPL'd replacement software for plenty of unix utilities, a bunch of which have your name on them. That's good, we're appreciative of that, but unfortunately, none of those can do for the kernel what BK has been doing, as it's advocates have said many times.
So, get out there and provide us with another quality replacement. You of all people should know where to start.
On Sun, Oct 13, 2002 at 05:18:40PM -0700, Larry McVoy wrote: > 3) If you had built a decent system instead of sitting around and whining, > we could be doing something else instead of sitting around listening > to your whining.
Larry, rest assured that exactly this is happinging right now all over the world. You are not feeling the backlash now, because it takes time, but it will happen, and you made pretty much sure of that.
You are pulling a Qt. By changing the license to BK to discourage development of BK alternatives you made sure that Subversion and other projects get plenty of new and highly motivated developers - you actually encouraged the development of BK alternatives just like the non-free license of Qt as the foundation of KDE spawned the Gnome project.
The clock just started ticking and when we reevaluate this discussion in one or two years time, the complete strategic stupidity of this particular license change from BKs POV view will be evident.
> > If the latest outrage brings the spirit of the non-free Bitkeeper > > license into clear view, perhaps that will be enough to convince the > > developers of Linux to stop using Bitkeeper for Linux development.
> What would be even better is if it convinced free software people > to develop a tool as good as, or better than, Bitkeeper.
> Until such a tool exists I'll tolerate Bitkeeper's licensing, since > my use of bitkeeper seems to increase rather than decrease the amount > of free software that's available.
Maybe we should start using Intel's compiler in place of gcc for x86 arch ? After all there's no such good free compiler ..
> The clock just started ticking and when we reevaluate this > discussion in one or two years time, the complete strategic > stupidity of this particular license change from BKs POV view > will be evident.
...and I would have gotten away with it, too, if not for you meddling kids and that pesky dog of yours! - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
On Sun, Oct 13, 2002 at 06:48:22PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote: > If the latest outrage brings the spirit of the non-free Bitkeeper > license into clear view, perhaps that will be enough to convince the > developers of Linux to stop using Bitkeeper for Linux development.
It's still linuxand not GNU/Linux, so I'd suugest you troll with your advice on some FSF list.
On Sun, Oct 13, 2002 at 05:18:40PM -0700, Larry McVoy wrote: > > 3) If you had built a decent system instead of sitting around and whining, > > we could be doing something else instead of sitting around listening > > to your whining.
> Larry, rest assured that exactly this is happinging right now > all over the world. You are not feeling the backlash now, > because it takes time, but it will happen, and you made pretty > much sure of that.
> You are pulling a Qt. By changing the license to BK to > discourage development of BK alternatives you made sure that > Subversion and other projects get plenty of new and highly > motivated developers - you actually encouraged the development > of BK alternatives just like the non-free license of Qt as the > foundation of KDE spawned the Gnome project.
> The clock just started ticking and when we reevaluate this > discussion in one or two years time, the complete strategic > stupidity of this particular license change from BKs POV view > will be evident.
I agree 100%; I'll just add one word:
OpenSSH
-- Pekka Savola "Tell me of difficulties surmounted, Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall" Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords
By this point, BitKeeper users will continue to be BitKeeper users and BitKeeper haters will continue to be BitKeeper haters. No one's mind is changing about BK these days -- either they like it or they don't. The debate has reached the level of emacs vs. vi, pro/anti-abortion, gun control, <insert favorite political issue here>.
No one's mind is being changed, there's just a lot of energy wasted on pointless ranting.
Thus, you should have seen even before hitting 'Send' that your message was nothing but a lot of hot air, slashdot fodder and a troll. Would it not be logically more productive to direct FSF efforts instead towards funding Arch or SubVersion development?
Jeff, a humble BitKeeper user and kernel developer
> > If the latest outrage brings the spirit of the non-free Bitkeeper > > license into clear view, perhaps that will be enough to convince the > > developers of Linux to stop using Bitkeeper for Linux development.
> What would be even better is if it convinced free software people > to develop a tool as good as, or better than, Bitkeeper.
I have made a ``heroic effort'' to create version control system system that reuses CVS to provide much better version control semantics. It does not address certain performance and fault-tolerance issues of CVS, but it's more powerful and mostly easier to use:
Please note that linux-kernel is a highly technical list, it's not a list to discuss software development ethics.
A technical issue or project sometimes raises ethical issues. When that happens, discussing the ethical issues is an essential part of the technical discussion. A discussion which ignores the ethical aspect of the issue is severely incomplete.
That does not happen often. Most of the decisions in a technical project are purely technical, and whatever is technically best is really best. After many such issues, it is easy to start thinking that raising ethical issues in a technical issue is improper, that there is some virtue in keeping technical decisions away from ethics. That is a the worst mistake an engineer can make.
Freedom includes for me that I can use any software that I have legally licensed (or written myself) without people complaining about it publically.
You are asking for the power to silence criticism. That is not freedom, that is a power.
> Freedom includes > for me that I can use any software that I have legally licensed (or > written myself) without people complaining about it publically.
> You are asking for the power to silence criticism. That is not > freedom, that is a power.
Richard, the day that the GPL doesn't use it's power to force people to do things they may not want to do is the day that you get to make the above statement in public without getting flamed. Today is not that day.
Just admit that the GPL forces people to do things just the same as a traditional license forces people to do things. You speak of freedom yet you took that freedom away with the GPL. If you really believed in freedom then the GPL would just be the same as the public domain. *That's* freedom. The BSD license is far closer to a truly free license, the GPL isn't even remotely close to a free license.
Your position seems to say "I, Richard Stallman, know what is the right answer for the world. So the rights I took away in the GPL are OK but the rights that other people take away in other licenses are not OK". A tad hypocritical, wouldn't you say?
I have no problem with the GPL, I think it's a fine license if your goal is to have things done out in the open with no hoarding. A great license, in fact. But I have a big problem with this constant harping on the term "freedom". The GPL absolutely positively does not grant me all the rights I want, it took substantial portions of my freedom away. I am not free to use GPL source in any way I wish and neither is anyone else.
I'm OK with you having a free license, go make one. I'm OK with you sticking with the GPL, but then you get admit that it is not a free license and stop kidding yourself and others. -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Larry McVoy wrote: > I have no problem with the GPL, I think it's a fine license if your > goal is to have things done out in the open with no hoarding. A great > license, in fact. But I have a big problem with this constant harping > on the term "freedom". The GPL absolutely positively does not grant me > all the rights I want, it took substantial portions of my freedom away. > I am not free to use GPL source in any way I wish and neither is anyone > else.
> I'm OK with you having a free license, go make one. I'm OK with you > sticking with the GPL, but then you get admit that it is not a free > license and stop kidding yourself and others.
At the potential cost of getting flamed, I think it is worth pointing out that the FSF's copyright assignment policy on several of their projects is _very_ anti-freedom. You are required to relinquish all your rights to your contributions, in exchange for the hope that the FSF will protect them.
So, like the GPL, you are really _giving up_ rights and freedoms for the overall cause of software freedom.
> Since RMS is a troll, I highly suggest you immediately uninstall all > software with any code written by him, including the GNU C Compiler suite.
That doesn't make sense. Just because he did a good thing we need to put up with his ranting and raving if we want to use it? Sorry - he forgot to put that condition into the GPL so we aren't bound by it.
-- Murray J. Root ------------------------------------------------ DISCLAIMER: http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/ ------------------------------------------------ Mandrake on irc.freenode.net: #mandrake & #mandrake-linux = help for newbies #mdk-cooker = Mandrake Cooker
> Since RMS is a troll, I highly suggest you immediately uninstall all > software with any code written by him, including the GNU C Compiler suite.
Obviously you can't read. I have no beef with RMS, it's just that his rants are off topic, thus the feeble, yet humerous attempt (borrowed from Rik) to curb the inevitable flurry of replies.
> Obviously you can't read. I have no beef with RMS, it's just that his rants > are off topic, thus the feeble, yet humerous attempt (borrowed from Rik) to > curb the inevitable flurry of replies.
I disagree with your statement that his rants are off topic. Unless you believe that the purpose of Linux isn't the advancement of Free software, then debating the merits of using non-Free software in the development process of a major cornerstone of the Free software movement is fundamentally on topic.
It's really the pointless flames (things like disregarding someone's argument because their consistent and vigilent in what they believe) that are off topic.
This email, is also off topic for the lkml, which is why I'm not posting to everyone on the list.
On Sat, Oct 19, 2002 at 06:45:37PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote: > Somebody that Richard did not consider worth properly quoting wrote: > > Freedom includes > > for me that I can use any software that I have legally licensed (or > > written myself) without people complaining about it publically. > You are asking for the power to silence criticism. That is not > freedom, that is a power.
He is asking for the freedom to not be JUDGED based on the toolset that he prefers to use.
An open minded individual would not confuse this with power.
On Sun, Oct 20, 2002 at 01:48:34AM +0200, Roman Zippel wrote: > On Sat, 19 Oct 2002, Larry McVoy wrote: > > > You are asking for the power to silence criticism. That is not > > > freedom, that is a power. > > [..] > > I am not free to use GPL source in any way I wish and neither is anyone > > else. > Now I'd really like to know, how Richard forces you to use GPL software...
Don't make it so easy. Look at what Richard wrote.
He thinks people are bad for using Bit Keeper, because the Bit Keeper license disagrees with his personal persuasions. He leaves no option for people to choose based on functionality. Instead, they must choose based on the ideals of Richard Stallman.
On Sat, Oct 19, 2002 at 10:18:18PM -0400, Murray J. Root wrote: > On Sat, Oct 19, 2002 at 10:00:08PM -0400, Jon Portnoy wrote: > > Since RMS is a troll, I highly suggest you immediately uninstall all > > software with any code written by him, including the GNU C Compiler suite. > That doesn't make sense. Just because he did a good thing we need to put up > with his ranting and raving if we want to use it? Sorry - he forgot to put > that condition into the GPL so we aren't bound by it.
Seriously. According to Richard, my freedom as the user supercedes Richard's freedom as author or contributor.
On Sun, Oct 20, 2002 at 01:58:26AM -0400, Zac Hansen wrote: > I disagree with your statement that his rants are off topic. Unless you > believe that the purpose of Linux isn't the advancement of Free software, > then debating the merits of using non-Free software in the development > process of a major cornerstone of the Free software movement is > fundamentally on topic.
Ask Richard if GCC was ever initially bootstrapped using a non-GPL compiler suite.
In the answer to that question lies the truth about the merits of Richard's rant against those with dissimilar opinions to his own.
|
