From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+willy=40w.ods.org@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id <S261779AbSJNAMz>; Sun, 13 Oct 2002 20:12:55 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S261783AbSJNAMz>; Sun, 13 Oct 2002 20:12:55 -0400
Received: from bitmover.com ([192.132.92.2]:40580 "EHLO mail.bitmover.com")
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id <S261779AbSJNAMy>;
	Sun, 13 Oct 2002 20:12:54 -0400
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 17:18:40 -0700
From: Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com>
To: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Bitkeeper outragem, old and new
Message-ID: <20021013171840.B1011@work.bitmover.com>
Mail-Followup-To: Larry McVoy <lm@work.bitmover.com>,
	Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <E180rX3-0005dL-00@fencepost.gnu.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i
In-Reply-To: <E180rX3-0005dL-00@fencepost.gnu.org>; from rms@gnu.org on Sun, Oct 13, 2002 at 06:48:22PM -0400
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Our position:

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 majordomo@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            	 lm at bitmover.com           http://www.bitmover.com/lm