Bitkeeper outragem, old and new

Bitkeeper outragem, old and new

[Richard Stallman]

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.

Re: Bitkeeper outragem, old and new

[William Lee Irwin III]

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.


Thanks,
Bill

Re: Bitkeeper outragem, old and new

[Rik van Riel]

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.

regards,

Rik
-- 
Bravely reimplemented by the knights who say "NIH".
http://www.surriel.com/		http://distro.conectiva.com/
Current spamtrap:  <a href=mailto:"october@surriel.com">october@surriel.com</a>

Re: Bitkeeper outragem, old and new

[Xavier Bestel]

Le lun 14/10/2002 à 01:00, Rik van Riel a écrit :
> 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.

Maybe we should start using Intel's compiler in place of gcc for x86
arch ? After all there's no such good free compiler ..

Re: Bitkeeper outragem, old and new

[Rando Christensen]

Sun, 13 Oct 2002 18:48:22 -0400: Richard Stallman (Richard Stallman
<rms@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.

-- 
< There is a light that shines on the frontier 
And maybe someday, We're gonna be there >
<Rando Christensen>
<rando@babblica.net>
<software - http://babblica.net>
<personal - http://digiwano.org>
<monkeys - http://illuzionz.org>

Re: Bitkeeper outragem, old and new

[Larry McVoy]

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 

Re: Bitkeeper outragem, old and new

[Kristian Koehntopp]

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.

Kristian

Re: Bitkeeper outragem, old and new

[Tim Hockin]

> 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!

Re: Bitkeeper outragem, old and new

[Henning P. Schmiedehausen]

Kristian Koehntopp <kris@koehntopp.de> writes:

>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.

No. SCM simply isn't sexy enough to keep people interested. (See:
"Mozilla"). Even Gnome didn't invent its own Qt. They used already
existing Gtk.

Larry is completely right here and his business model works find for
such a piece of vertical software like SCM.

	Regards
		Henning

-- 
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen       -- Geschaeftsfuehrer
INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH     hps@intermeta.de

Am Schwabachgrund 22  Fon.: 09131 / 50654-0   info@intermeta.de
D-91054 Buckenhof     Fax.: 09131 / 50654-20   

Re: Bitkeeper outragem, old and new

[Henning P. Schmiedehausen]

Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com> writes:

>Our position:

>1) No free licenses for our competition, they can buy them if they like.

free beer, not free speech, right? :-)

	Regards
		Henning

-- 
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen       -- Geschaeftsfuehrer
INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH     hps@intermeta.de

Am Schwabachgrund 22  Fon.: 09131 / 50654-0   info@intermeta.de
D-91054 Buckenhof     Fax.: 09131 / 50654-20   

Re: Bitkeeper outragem, old and new

[Christoph Hellwig]

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.

Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new

[Richard Stallman]

      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.

Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new

[Larry McVoy]

>       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 

Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new

[Jeff Garzik]

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.

	Jeff, who GPLs all the software he writes...

Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new

[Ben Collins]

On Sat, Oct 19, 2002 at 07:28:43PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> 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.

Jeff, they don't force you, they require it to be turned over to them
for inclusion in the FSF proper upstream source. Also, it doesn't mean
that you lose your rights to the original piece. You can still reuse
your own source as the copyright owner.

That doesn't stop things like egcs from happening, does it? It's not
like Apple's old license that the mere releasing of your patches to the
source requires turning over non-exclusive rights.

I really hope I didn't help this thread diminish into a licensing
flamefest.

-- 
Debian     - http://www.debian.org/
Linux 1394 - http://www.linux1394.org/
Subversion - http://subversion.tigris.org/
Deqo       - http://www.deqo.com/

Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new

[Jeff Garzik]

Ben Collins wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 19, 2002 at 07:28:43PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> 
>>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.
> 
> 
> Jeff, they don't force you, they require it to be turned over to them
> for inclusion in the FSF proper upstream source. Also, it doesn't mean
> that you lose your rights to the original piece. You can still reuse
> your own source as the copyright owner.


The whole point of the copyright assignment is that FSF becomes 
copyright owner.

This is so that Jeff Garzik cannot be strongarmed into changing the 
license on his code, or some other anti-software-freedom tactic levied 
against me in the future.  In theory, the FSF as an organization will 
protect the rights of the software when I might weaken and give in.

But in exchange for that protection, you are willingly giving up your 
rights as copyright owner...  Less freedom for [hopefully] better 
protection.  Just like everything in life, it's a tradeoff... :)

	Jeff

Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new

[Ben Collins]

> 
> The whole point of the copyright assignment is that FSF becomes 
> copyright owner.
> 
> This is so that Jeff Garzik cannot be strongarmed into changing the 
> license on his code, or some other anti-software-freedom tactic levied 
> against me in the future.  In theory, the FSF as an organization will 
> protect the rights of the software when I might weaken and give in.
> 
> But in exchange for that protection, you are willingly giving up your 
> rights as copyright owner...  Less freedom for [hopefully] better 
> protection.  Just like everything in life, it's a tradeoff... :)
> 

I disagree. I don't see anything in the copyright assignment (and I have
signed a few for the FSF) that says I don't retain original copyright
for my work.


-- 
Debian     - http://www.debian.org/
Linux 1394 - http://www.linux1394.org/
Subversion - http://subversion.tigris.org/
Deqo       - http://www.deqo.com/

Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new

[Jeff Garzik]

Ben Collins wrote:
>>The whole point of the copyright assignment is that FSF becomes 
>>copyright owner.
>>
>>This is so that Jeff Garzik cannot be strongarmed into changing the 
>>license on his code, or some other anti-software-freedom tactic levied 
>>against me in the future.  In theory, the FSF as an organization will 
>>protect the rights of the software when I might weaken and give in.
>>
>>But in exchange for that protection, you are willingly giving up your 
>>rights as copyright owner...  Less freedom for [hopefully] better 
>>protection.  Just like everything in life, it's a tradeoff... :)
>>
> 
> 
> I disagree. I don't see anything in the copyright assignment (and I have
> signed a few for the FSF) that says I don't retain original copyright
> for my work.


If you keep a copy locally, sure.  But the upstream sources, i.e. what's 
important, you lose rights to even though you may have contributed 
substantial amounts of code.  IOW if binutils goes off in a direction 
you don't like, for example the FSF changes the license from GPL to 
Microsoft EULA, you don't have any say in the matter whatsoever.  You're 
left with a code fork based on the last GPL sources and/or the patches 
you've kept locally.

With Linux, I have a say in what happens to the upstream sources -- the 
thing most people care about :)

	Jeff

Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new

[Richard Stallman]

      IOW if binutils goes off in a direction 
    you don't like, for example the FSF changes the license from GPL to 
    Microsoft EULA, you don't have any say in the matter whatsoever.

FSF copyright assignments place a number of limits on how the FSF can
use the code, including limits on what sort of licenses we can use.
If we did what you have in mind, we would be violating all these
contracts (as well as our charter).  I wrote the contracts this way so
that contributors would not have to rely entirely on our good
intentions.

Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new

[Andrew D Kirch]

OK, time for me to weigh in, I agree with RMS that this must be both a technical and ethical board, and in fact moreso must encompass ALL aspects of the development of the kernel.
Next, I would like to apologize to Larry McVoy, you have given us your program, free of cost, you have allowed us to use your program, which was determined by Linus (and with the respect I have for this man, let alone his position, his determination is inarguable) to be the superior source management system.  You sir have taken more (and pardon me here) shit than just about anyone I've ever seen on any mailing list.  Quite honestly sir, I would have packed up my basketball and gone home.  I thank you for staying and assure you that there are people on this list, and in the community that thank you for your efforts in making the linux kernel what it is.

To RMS, and the host of those in the world, I add one more freedom to those espoused in the GPL.  The freedom to simply not use it when software released under it's terms aren't the best fit for what needs to be done.  It's a license not a swiss army knife.  Anyways I'm done ranting, regards to all who have had their time wasted in this fruitless argument, and thankyou again to larry for his tolerance of this.

Andrew D Kirch


On Mon, 21 Oct 2002 23:13:37 -0400
Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> wrote:

>       IOW if binutils goes off in a direction 
>     you don't like, for example the FSF changes the license from GPL to 
>     Microsoft EULA, you don't have any say in the matter whatsoever.
> 
> FSF copyright assignments place a number of limits on how the FSF can
> use the code, including limits on what sort of licenses we can use.
> If we did what you have in mind, we would be violating all these
> contracts (as well as our charter).  I wrote the contracts this way so
> that contributors would not have to rely entirely on our good
> intentions.
> 
> -
> 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/

Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new

[Robert Love]

On Sun, 2002-10-20 at 13:34, Ben Collins wrote:

> I disagree. I don't see anything in the copyright assignment (and I have
> signed a few for the FSF) that says I don't retain original copyright
> for my work.

That is only because they relicense the work back to you (and its GPLed
you have a lot of freedom with it anyhow).

When you sign over your copyright, you relinquish it.  The FSF now has
the copyright on your work and you do not.

	Robert Love

Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new

[Xavier Bestel]

Le dim 20/10/2002 à 21:15, Robert Love a écrit :
> On Sun, 2002-10-20 at 13:34, Ben Collins wrote:
> 
> > I disagree. I don't see anything in the copyright assignment (and I have
> > signed a few for the FSF) that says I don't retain original copyright
> > for my work.
> 
> That is only because they relicense the work back to you (and its GPLed
> you have a lot of freedom with it anyhow).
> 
> When you sign over your copyright, you relinquish it.  The FSF now has
> the copyright on your work and you do not.

You're plain wrong. 

You both have the copyright on your work.

	Xav

Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new

[Robert Love]

On Sun, 2002-10-20 at 17:42, Xavier Bestel wrote:

> You're plain wrong. 
> 
> You both have the copyright on your work.

It is called copyright _assignment_ for a reason.  How the hell are two
people supposed to simultaneously own a copyright on the same work?

The assignment says (I quote) "I hereby transfer... my entire right,
title, and interest (including all rights under copyright)... in my
program".

	Robert Love

Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new

[Xavier Bestel]

Le dim 20/10/2002 à 23:51, Robert Love a écrit :
> On Sun, 2002-10-20 at 17:42, Xavier Bestel wrote:
> 
> > You're plain wrong. 
> > 
> > You both have the copyright on your work.
> 
> It is called copyright _assignment_ for a reason.  How the hell are two
> people supposed to simultaneously own a copyright on the same work?
> 
> The assignment says (I quote) "I hereby transfer... my entire right,
> title, and interest (including all rights under copyright)... in my
> program".

Last time I looked, it wasn't possible to relinquish copyright on your
own work, no matter what you sign. Maybe it's not like that in all
countries, after all.

Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new

[Robert Love]

On Sun, 2002-10-20 at 18:20, Xavier Bestel wrote:

> Last time I looked, it wasn't possible to relinquish copyright on your
> own work, no matter what you sign. Maybe it's not like that in all
> countries, after all.

It is certainly not like that in the United States and in most European
countries.

For example, think of software written for any commercial software
developer.  Or, when you write a book, you sign the rights over to a
publisher.. etc. etc.

Copyright assignment is a normal part of the copyright process.

	Robert Love

Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new

[Rik van Riel]

On 21 Oct 2002, Xavier Bestel wrote:
> Le dim 20/10/2002 à 23:51, Robert Love a écrit :

> > The assignment says (I quote) "I hereby transfer... my entire right,
> > title, and interest (including all rights under copyright)... in my
> > program".
>
> Last time I looked, it wasn't possible to relinquish copyright on your
> own work, no matter what you sign. Maybe it's not like that in all
> countries, after all.

Germany (and France, judging from your words) have laws that
guarantee that the creator of a work keeps copyright on the
work.  At least, part of the copyright cannot be signed over
to other people or organisations.

I wonder if this means the FSF can't accept contributions
from these countries, or if they've found some weasel-words
around the legislation of those countries...

Rik
-- 
Bravely reimplemented by the knights who say "NIH".
http://www.surriel.com/		http://distro.conectiva.com/
Current spamtrap:  <a href=mailto:"october@surriel.com">october@surriel.com</a>

Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new

[Roman Zippel]

Hi,

On Sun, 20 Oct 2002, Rik van Riel wrote:

> I wonder if this means the FSF can't accept contributions
> from these countries, or if they've found some weasel-words
> around the legislation of those countries...

Do you have any specific reason to believe that the FSF needs to "weasel"
around something or do you badmouth and insult other people just for fun?

bye, Roman

Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new

[Rob Landley]

On Sunday 20 October 2002 17:53, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On 21 Oct 2002, Xavier Bestel wrote:
> > Le dim 20/10/2002 à 23:51, Robert Love a écrit :
> > > The assignment says (I quote) "I hereby transfer... my entire right,
> > > title, and interest (including all rights under copyright)... in my
> > > program".
> >
> > Last time I looked, it wasn't possible to relinquish copyright on your
> > own work, no matter what you sign. Maybe it's not like that in all
> > countries, after all.
>
> Germany (and France, judging from your words) have laws that
> guarantee that the creator of a work keeps copyright on the
> work.  At least, part of the copyright cannot be signed over
> to other people or organisations.
>
> I wonder if this means the FSF can't accept contributions
> from these countries, or if they've found some weasel-words
> around the legislation of those countries...
>
> Rik

1) The reason the FSF wanted people to sign over their copyrights was so 
they'd have unassailable standing in court to defend them if sued.  (The 
copyrightholder is the one who gets to sue to enforce the copyright.)

2) It's possible to have joint copyrights, or more than one copyright on a 
work.  Think a song written by one person, sung by another, with backup 
vocals and session musicians, each of whom has a copyright on their 
performance.  (This is why movies get everybody to sign a release up front, 
and why theatrical performances of things like "cats" where they don't do 
this up-front are basically never videotaped and shown on television, no 
matter successful they wind up being.)

3) The creator of a work doesn't always get the copyright, at least in the US.  
There's something called "work for hire", which means if somebody else 
commisioned the work (paid you to do it, and asked you to do it, and you were 
acting as their employee, etc), they get the copyright rather than you.  
(Usually your contract has some variant of copyright assignment anyway just 
to be safe.)

4) A work can be dual licensed.  A license is a grant of permission from the 
copyright holder delegating the rights reserved by the copyright, such as the 
ability to make copies.  The person the law reserves those rights to can 
grant permission multiple times, to different people or overlapping groups of 
people, under different terms, etc...

Hit google and look for "copyright law faq", the first few hits are good.  
Some are little out of date (the faqs.org one is from january 94, predating 
the DMCA and such, but still a great primer on the basics).

Rob

Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new

[Rik van Riel]

On Sun, 20 Oct 2002, Rob Landley wrote:
> On Sunday 20 October 2002 17:53, Rik van Riel wrote:

> > Germany (and France, judging from your words) have laws that
> > guarantee that the creator of a work keeps copyright on the
> > work.  At least, part of the copyright cannot be signed over
> > to other people or organisations.

> 3) The creator of a work doesn't always get the copyright, at least in
> the US.

Please see above.  It's possible the FSF copyright assignment
just can't be legal in some countries.

Rik
-- 
Bravely reimplemented by the knights who say "NIH".
http://www.surriel.com/		http://distro.conectiva.com/
Current spamtrap:  <a href=mailto:"october@surriel.com">october@surriel.com</a>

Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new

[Daniel Berlin]

On Monday, October 21, 2002, at 10:33  AM, Rik van Riel wrote:

> On Sun, 20 Oct 2002, Rob Landley wrote:
>> On Sunday 20 October 2002 17:53, Rik van Riel wrote:
>
>>> Germany (and France, judging from your words) have laws that
>>> guarantee that the creator of a work keeps copyright on the
>>> work.  At least, part of the copyright cannot be signed over
>>> to other people or organisations.
>
>> 3) The creator of a work doesn't always get the copyright, at least in
>> the US.
>
> Please see above.  It's possible the FSF copyright assignment
> just can't be legal in some countries.
>
Possibly, but as a contract, it doesn't matter (unless these other  
countries don't do promissory estoppel. AFAIK from a google search,  
they do).

Even if the contract is invalid, if the FSF relies on the promise of  
rights in the contract to its detriment (IE are sued by the author for  
infringement or something), the promise will be enforced (to avoid  
injustice).

For an plain english description of what promissory estoppel is, see
http://facstaff.gallaudet.edu/marshall.wick/bus447/ 
promissory_estoppel.html

It's a bit more than that, but that's the general idea.

--Dan

Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new

[Vojtech Pavlik]

On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 12:33:54PM -0200, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Oct 2002, Rob Landley wrote:
> > On Sunday 20 October 2002 17:53, Rik van Riel wrote:
> 
> > > Germany (and France, judging from your words) have laws that
> > > guarantee that the creator of a work keeps copyright on the
> > > work.  At least, part of the copyright cannot be signed over
> > > to other people or organisations.
> 
> > 3) The creator of a work doesn't always get the copyright, at least in
> > the US.
> 
> Please see above.  It's possible the FSF copyright assignment
> just can't be legal in some countries.

Even the GNU GPL isn't legally valid in some countries. Czech Republic,
where I'm from is an example - for a license agreement like this, both
parties (the author and the user) have to be at least notified, and if
they are not, the agreement is invalid. This is a quite understandable
law, but doesn't work with the GPL unless you always contact all the
authors.

-- 
Vojtech Pavlik
SuSE Labs

Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new

[Kristian Koehntopp]

On Sun, Oct 20, 2002 at 08:53:09PM -0200, Rik van Riel wrote:
> Germany (and France, judging from your words) have laws that
> guarantee that the creator of a work keeps copyright on the
> work.

What is called "copyright" in the US is Urheberrechte (authors
rights) in Germany. It conceptually differs from US copyright,
as it not only includes Vervielfaeltigungsrechte (copy and use
rights) but Autorpersoenlichkeitsrechte (author personality
rights) as well. German law allows the transfer of copy and use
rights, but it completely forbids to give up author personality
rights.

Author personality rights include rights to being named as an
author of a work, rights to forbid entstellende Modifikationen
(defacing modifications?) and for some types of work that cannot
be reproduced even the right of the author to access (visit) the
work.

German law also limits copy and use rights in certain more
esoteric cases.

Kristian

Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new

[Vojtech Pavlik]

On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 12:20:07AM +0200, Xavier Bestel wrote:

> Le dim 20/10/2002 ŕ 23:51, Robert Love a écrit :
> > On Sun, 2002-10-20 at 17:42, Xavier Bestel wrote:
> > 
> > > You're plain wrong. 
> > > 
> > > You both have the copyright on your work.
> > 
> > It is called copyright _assignment_ for a reason.  How the hell are two
> > people supposed to simultaneously own a copyright on the same work?
> > 
> > The assignment says (I quote) "I hereby transfer... my entire right,
> > title, and interest (including all rights under copyright)... in my
> > program".
> 
> Last time I looked, it wasn't possible to relinquish copyright on your
> own work, no matter what you sign. Maybe it's not like that in all
> countries, after all.

It's not possible in Europe (most of it), but easily possible in the US.

-- 
Vojtech Pavlik
SuSE Labs

Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new

[Daniel Berlin]

On Sunday, October 20, 2002, at 05:51  PM, Robert Love wrote:

> On Sun, 2002-10-20 at 17:42, Xavier Bestel wrote:
>
>> You're plain wrong.
>>
>> You both have the copyright on your work.
>
> It is called copyright _assignment_ for a reason.  How the hell are two
> people supposed to simultaneously own a copyright on the same work?
>
Joint authorship.
"The authors of a joint work are co-owners of copyright in the work" 
(17 USC §201(a)).
IOW They each own a 100% copyright in the work.
Leads to odd situations of course, since one author can do whatever 
they like with the work without any permission from the other authors, 
etc.

--Dan

Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new

[Robert Love]

On Sun, 2002-10-20 at 18:52, Daniel Berlin wrote:

> On Sunday, October 20, 2002, at 05:51  PM, Robert Love wrote:
> 
> > It is called copyright _assignment_ for a reason.  How the hell are two
> > people supposed to simultaneously own a copyright on the same work?
> >
> Joint authorship.

The FSF Copyright Assignment is not joint authorship, it is copyright
assignment.  They alone possess the work's copyright.

	Robert Love 

Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new

[Daniel Berlin]

On 20 Oct 2002, Robert Love wrote:

> On Sun, 2002-10-20 at 18:52, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> 
> > On Sunday, October 20, 2002, at 05:51  PM, Robert Love wrote:
> > 
> > > It is called copyright _assignment_ for a reason.  How the hell are two
> > > people supposed to simultaneously own a copyright on the same work?
> > >
> > Joint authorship.
> 
> The FSF Copyright Assignment is not joint authorship, it is copyright
> assignment.  They alone possess the work's copyright.
Of course.
But you asked "How the hell are two people supposed to simultaneously own 
a copyright on the same work?"
The answer is "Joint authorship".

Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new

[Rob Landley]

On Sunday 20 October 2002 18:04, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> On 20 Oct 2002, Robert Love wrote:
> > On Sun, 2002-10-20 at 18:52, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> > > On Sunday, October 20, 2002, at 05:51  PM, Robert Love wrote:
> > > > It is called copyright _assignment_ for a reason.  How the hell are
> > > > two people supposed to simultaneously own a copyright on the same
> > > > work?
> > >
> > > Joint authorship.
> >
> > The FSF Copyright Assignment is not joint authorship, it is copyright
> > assignment.  They alone possess the work's copyright.
>
> Of course.
> But you asked "How the hell are two people supposed to simultaneously own
> a copyright on the same work?"
> The answer is "Joint authorship".

An analogous legal concept, for those of you who have taken a community 
college business law course (and if you haven't, it might be a good idea), is 
the partnership.  See "joint and several liability".  (There's a reason they 
invented the corporation...)

As far as I understand, joint authorship does not apply to the linux kernel 
because the contributors are operating under a license to an existing work 
rather than an up-front collaboration between partners to produce a specific 
good.  (Joint authorship pretty much happens up-front.)  The fact the 
contributors largely don't know each other, and that patches are discrete 
entities which may be individually tracked (and thus individually owned), 
work in here too.

It's more like designing and manufacturing spider man collector cups.  The 
drawing on the cup is a new copyrightable item, but the character being 
portrayed is a licensed entity.  A license to put your own drawing of 
spider-man on a plastic cup doesn't give you the right to turn around and 
stick that drawing on pajamas and bath towels, even though it's your drawing 
which you have a copyright on.  In this kind of collaboration, you must have 
compatable licenses for the components...

I am not, of course, a lawyer. :)

Rob

Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new

[Ben Collins]

On Sun, Oct 20, 2002 at 06:52:58PM -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> 
> On Sunday, October 20, 2002, at 05:51  PM, Robert Love wrote:
> 
> >On Sun, 2002-10-20 at 17:42, Xavier Bestel wrote:
> >
> >>You're plain wrong.
> >>
> >>You both have the copyright on your work.
> >
> >It is called copyright _assignment_ for a reason.  How the hell are two
> >people supposed to simultaneously own a copyright on the same work?
> >
> Joint authorship.
> "The authors of a joint work are co-owners of copyright in the work" 
> (17 USC ?201(a)).
> IOW They each own a 100% copyright in the work.
> Leads to odd situations of course, since one author can do whatever 
> they like with the work without any permission from the other authors, 
> etc.

Think of this, if you pay $1,000,000 to the OpenGroup, you can purchase
the source to DCE/DFS and do whatever the hell you want with it.

That doesn't relinquish the OpenGroup's copyright, so they can sell as
many copies of the source as they want, nor would it relinquish IBM's
copyright to Transarc's source (who also purchased it from the
opengroup).



-- 
Debian     - http://www.debian.org/
Linux 1394 - http://www.linux1394.org/
Subversion - http://subversion.tigris.org/
Deqo       - http://www.deqo.com/

Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new

[Daniel Berlin]

On Sun, 20 Oct 2002, Ben Collins wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 20, 2002 at 06:52:58PM -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> > 
> > On Sunday, October 20, 2002, at 05:51  PM, Robert Love wrote:
> > 
> > >On Sun, 2002-10-20 at 17:42, Xavier Bestel wrote:
> > >
> > >>You're plain wrong.
> > >>
> > >>You both have the copyright on your work.
> > >
> > >It is called copyright _assignment_ for a reason.  How the hell are two
> > >people supposed to simultaneously own a copyright on the same work?
> > >
> > Joint authorship.
> > "The authors of a joint work are co-owners of copyright in the work" 
> > (17 USC ?201(a)).
> > IOW They each own a 100% copyright in the work.
> > Leads to odd situations of course, since one author can do whatever 
> > they like with the work without any permission from the other authors, 
> > etc.
> 
> Think of this, if you pay $1,000,000 to the OpenGroup, you can purchase
> the source to DCE/DFS and do whatever the hell you want with it.
This is a license, not a transfer of copyright.
--Dan

Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new

[Daniel Berlin]

On Sunday, October 20, 2002, at 05:42  PM, Xavier Bestel wrote:

> Le dim 20/10/2002 à 21:15, Robert Love a écrit :
>> On Sun, 2002-10-20 at 13:34, Ben Collins wrote:
>>
>>> I disagree. I don't see anything in the copyright assignment (and I 
>>> have
>>> signed a few for the FSF) that says I don't retain original copyright
>>> for my work.
>>
>> That is only because they relicense the work back to you (and its 
>> GPLed
>> you have a lot of freedom with it anyhow).
>>
>> When you sign over your copyright, you relinquish it.  The FSF now has
>> the copyright on your work and you do not.
>
> You're plain wrong.
>
> You both have the copyright on your work.

No, you don't.
2+ people having copyrights on something only occurs when you have 
joint authorship (or rare partial transfers).
In this case, what we have is the a transfer of copyright from you, to 
the FSF ("my entire right, title, and interest (including all rights 
under copyright))"
It's like transferring rights to real property (in most countries, you 
can view copyright as an object of property in trying to determine what 
you can do with it)
When rights are transferred to another party, the original author 
doesn't get any residual rights unless these are expressly reserved as 
a "grant back".
You are no longer the owner of the copy right.

--Dan
  

Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new

[Brad Hards]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Mon, 21 Oct 2002 08:47, Daniel Berlin wrote:

> 2+ people having copyrights on something only occurs when you have
> joint authorship (or rare partial transfers).
> In this case, what we have is the a transfer of copyright from you, to
> the FSF ("my entire right, title, and interest (including all rights
> under copyright))"
> It's like transferring rights to real property (in most countries, you
> can view copyright as an object of property in trying to determine what
> you can do with it)
> When rights are transferred to another party, the original author
> doesn't get any residual rights unless these are expressly reserved as
> a "grant back".
> You are no longer the owner of the copy right.
Which is the whole point of the FSF copyright assignment. They don't want you 
to relicense it under some other terms. Under the GPL it doesn't matter who 
owns the copyright, so the only point of the copyright assignment is to 
reduce _your_ rights.

I understand why the FSF want to do this (imagine a major free-software 
producer in financial trouble, and a big product (eg GCC and binutils) that 
they could sell to a closed-source vendor). I just don't plan to do this 
myself.

Brad

- -- 
http://linux.conf.au. 22-25Jan2003. Perth, Aust. I'm registered. Are you?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE9szOCW6pHgIdAuOMRAkRsAKCjuMSaCbzWKYJYfNbGL0wj60co4ACdENXK
xDDNeReSGOAOpT02TbtB7B0=
=BI1d
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new

[Xavier Bestel]

Le lun 21/10/2002 à 00:51, Brad Hards a écrit :
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On Mon, 21 Oct 2002 08:47, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> 
> > 2+ people having copyrights on something only occurs when you have
> > joint authorship (or rare partial transfers).
> > In this case, what we have is the a transfer of copyright from you, to
> > the FSF ("my entire right, title, and interest (including all rights
> > under copyright))"
> > It's like transferring rights to real property (in most countries, you
> > can view copyright as an object of property in trying to determine what
> > you can do with it)
> > When rights are transferred to another party, the original author
> > doesn't get any residual rights unless these are expressly reserved as
> > a "grant back".
> > You are no longer the owner of the copy right.
> Which is the whole point of the FSF copyright assignment. They don't want you 
> to relicense it under some other terms. Under the GPL it doesn't matter who 
> owns the copyright, so the only point of the copyright assignment is to 
> reduce _your_ rights.

But in the copyright assignment request, the FSF states:

"   However, upon thirty days` prior written notice, the Foundation
agrees to grant me non-exclusive rights to use the program as I see
fit; (and the Foundation shall also own similar non-exclusive rights)."

Doesn't this mean that the author still has copyrights on his work,
provided he tells the FSF within one month ?

Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new

[Daniel Berlin]

On Monday, October 21, 2002, at 03:51  AM, Xavier Bestel wrote:

> Le lun 21/10/2002 à 00:51, Brad Hards a écrit :
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On Mon, 21 Oct 2002 08:47, Daniel Berlin wrote:
>>
>>> 2+ people having copyrights on something only occurs when you have
>>> joint authorship (or rare partial transfers).
>>> In this case, what we have is the a transfer of copyright from you, 
>>> to
>>> the FSF ("my entire right, title, and interest (including all rights
>>> under copyright))"
>>> It's like transferring rights to real property (in most countries, 
>>> you
>>> can view copyright as an object of property in trying to determine 
>>> what
>>> you can do with it)
>>> When rights are transferred to another party, the original author
>>> doesn't get any residual rights unless these are expressly reserved 
>>> as
>>> a "grant back".
>>> You are no longer the owner of the copy right.
>> Which is the whole point of the FSF copyright assignment. They don't 
>> want you
>> to relicense it under some other terms. Under the GPL it doesn't 
>> matter who
>> owns the copyright, so the only point of the copyright assignment is 
>> to
>> reduce _your_ rights.
>
> But in the copyright assignment request, the FSF states:
>
> "   However, upon thirty days` prior written notice, the Foundation
> agrees to grant me non-exclusive rights to use the program as I see
> fit; (and the Foundation shall also own similar non-exclusive rights)."
>
> Doesn't this mean that the author still has copyrights on his work,
> provided he tells the FSF within one month ?

Nope.
It means within 30 days of you giving them notice, they'll give you a 
license to do whatever you want with your stuff in terms of *use*. They 
aren't giving you back *ownership*.
It's not a copyright transfer, it's a license.   It gives you much the 
same rights, but you don't get the legal protection remedies and 
whatnot that are in the copyright statute.
They'd have to reassign copyright back to you to get it.
Copyright transfers must be explicit, and in writing (mumble mumble as 
with all of law, there are a few small exceptions mumble mumble).
So if it doesn't look like a copyright assignment, and you can't tell 
if it is one or not, it's not one.
--Dan

Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new

[Rik van Riel]

On Sun, 20 Oct 2002, Ben Collins wrote:

> > But in exchange for that protection, you are willingly giving up your
> > rights as copyright owner...  Less freedom for [hopefully] better
> > protection.  Just like everything in life, it's a tradeoff... :)
>
> I disagree. I don't see anything in the copyright assignment (and I have
> signed a few for the FSF) that says I don't retain original copyright
> for my work.

I've heard this argument about BSD-licensed software, too.

"So what if somebody makes a commercial version ?
 The free version will still be available..."

Rik
-- 
Bravely reimplemented by the knights who say "NIH".
http://www.surriel.com/		http://distro.conectiva.com/
Current spamtrap:  <a href=mailto:"october@surriel.com">october@surriel.com</a>

Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new

[Daniel Berlin]

On Sun, 20 Oct 2002, Ben Collins wrote:

> On Sat, Oct 19, 2002 at 07:28:43PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 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.
> 
> Jeff, they don't force you, they require it to be turned over to them
> for inclusion in the FSF proper upstream source. Also, it doesn't mean
> that you lose your rights to the original piece. You can still reuse
> your own source as the copyright owner.
Not quite.
The reason you can reuse is only because they grant the right to use (and 
sublicense, etc) back to you as part of the contract.
You are *not* the copyright owner anymore, however.

Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new

[Roman Zippel]

Hi,

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...

bye, Roman

Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new

[Mark Mielke]

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.

mark

-- 
mark@mielke.cc/markm@ncf.ca/markm@nortelnetworks.com __________________________
.  .  _  ._  . .   .__    .  . ._. .__ .   . . .__  | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/    |_     |\/|  |  |_  |   |/  |_   | 
|  | | | | \ | \   |__ .  |  | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__  | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

  One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
                       and in the darkness bind them...

                           http://mark.mielke.cc/

Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new

[Richard Stallman]

    >       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.

You responded to this point by changing the subject completely, so it
looks like you have no argument against the point itself.

    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.

Alas, by flaming me now you have made your own statement untrue.

The GPL protects the crucial freedoms for every user, which means that
middlemen cannot pass along our code but strip off the freedom.  It
doesn't let Mr. Bill use our code in the way he would like to, and
perhaps it doesn't let you use our code in the way you would like to,
but it doesn't force you to do anything.  The GPL, like other free
software licenses, respects for the users the essential freedoms that
all software users should have.  This the crucial ethical difference
between the GPL (and other free software licenses) and a non-free
license.

    If you really believed
    in freedom then the GPL would just be the same as the public domain.

This is the old "We're not free unless we are `free' to deny freedom
to others" argument that some (not all) advocates of the BSD license
often make.  It is a word game intended to render the concept of
freedom so confused that people can't think about it any more.  Once
people see through this, it loses its effect.

I refer people to http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/x.html for more
discussion of this issue.

    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?

My position is rather different from that.  What I say is that
computer users are entitled to the freedom to study, change, and
redistribute the software they use.  See
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.html for a discussion of
this issue.

The existing legal system for software is unjust because it is
designed to help developers to deny users those freedoms.  However,
using it in turnabout, to protect those freedoms, is a proper response
to the situation as it exists.  (This is the basic concept of
copyleft.)  See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pragmatic.html for
more explanation.

The GPL prohibits trampling the freedom of others.  Those who wish to
make non-free software, those who would not respect the freedom of
others, often cry bloody murder about this "restriction".  But even as
they complain that they cannot put our code into their non-free
products, they are refusing to let us put their code into our free
software packages.  More than a tad hypocritical, I would say.

Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new

[Jon Portnoy]

On Sun, 20 Oct 2002, Richard Stallman wrote:

[snip]
> 
> This is the old "We're not free unless we are `free' to deny freedom
> to others" argument that some (not all) advocates of the BSD license
> often make.  It is a word game intended to render the concept of
> freedom so confused that people can't think about it any more.  Once
> people see through this, it loses its effect.
> 

Agreed. To me, freedom absolutely does _not_ mean the freedom to deny 
freedom. Freedom is something that _must_ be protected by any means 
necessary.

Some people would like to think that it's possible to write code without 
it being "politicized." This is, most certainly, not the case. Any project 
as major as what the GNU project writes, what the kernel developers write, 
or what proprietary developers such as Microsoft write are political 
projects. When large companies develop proprietary software, that's making 
a statement: "we believe it's okay to deny our users freedom."
When developers write free software, that's also making a statement: "we 
believe users are just as deserving of rights as authors."

The issue here is using non-free software to develop free software. This, 
too, makes a political statement: "we don't mind if freedom is being 
denied as long as we're able to work efficiently."

Would it be okay to use Microsoft products to develop free software as 
long as said products made development efficient? In my opinion, Bitkeeper 
is no better than Microsoft due to the 'you may not use this if your 
company develops competing software' issue. This is heavy-handed 
authoritarianism. 

I can understand denying those individuals who develop 
competing software a free seat; I most certainly don't agree with it, but 
I can understand it. What about people who work for large companies that 
may, in fact, have a product that could compete with Bitkeeper? 

Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new

[Rik van Riel]

On Sun, 20 Oct 2002, Jon Portnoy wrote:

> The issue here is using non-free software to develop free software. This,
> too, makes a political statement: "we don't mind if freedom is being
> denied as long as we're able to work efficiently."

Or more accurately: "we're using a non-free piece of software
because none of the free software fanatics have gotten away
from their flame^Wmail reader for a moment to create a suitable
piece of free software."

If you _really_ care about the Linux developers using a non-free
piece of software and you want to change the situation, the only
thing you need to do is write a suitable replacement that is free.

cheers,

Rik
-- 
Bravely reimplemented by the knights who say "NIH".
http://www.surriel.com/		http://distro.conectiva.com/
Current spamtrap:  <a href=mailto:"october@surriel.com">october@surriel.com</a>

Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new

[John Jasen]

On Sun, 20 Oct 2002, Jon Portnoy wrote:

> Would it be okay to use Microsoft products to develop free software as 
> long as said products made development efficient? In my opinion, Bitkeeper 
> is no better than Microsoft due to the 'you may not use this if your 
> company develops competing software' issue. This is heavy-handed 
> authoritarianism. 

As Larry McVoy said before, they may not use the free version. They can 
buy the commercial version.

> I can understand denying those individuals who develop 
> competing software a free seat; I most certainly don't agree with it, but 
> I can understand it. What about people who work for large companies that 
> may, in fact, have a product that could compete with Bitkeeper? 

As Larry McVoy said before, they can apply for an exemption.

-- 
-- John E. Jasen (jjasen@realityfailure.org)
-- User Error #2361: Please insert coffee and try again.

Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new

[Matt D. Robinson]

On Sun, 20 Oct 2002, Jon Portnoy wrote:
|>On Sun, 20 Oct 2002, Richard Stallman wrote:
|>> This is the old "We're not free unless we are `free' to deny freedom
|>> to others" argument that some (not all) advocates of the BSD license
|>> often make.  It is a word game intended to render the concept of
|>> freedom so confused that people can't think about it any more.  Once
|>> people see through this, it loses its effect.

It seems like people have lost their marbles on this issue.

Using the BSD license gives the receiver certain freedoms.  I'm all
for that -- if someone takes my BSD licensed code and never releases
modifications back to me (or anyone else), that's okay.  I chose
that license because that's what I intended and should even expect
to happen.

Using the GNU GPL means imposing your idea of freedom on others,
which in some cases I'm all for.  Either it's required of me (because
I've modified GPL code and released it) or I think that people
will benefit from being able to use it and expand upon it openly.
There's plenty of cases where that's a good thing to do.

Using a proprietary license means protecting interests, regardless
of freedoms for anything.  That's okay as well -- some people like
to earn a paycheck and/or preserve their investments.  When it
comes down to putting food on your family's table, or putting a
roof over their heads, in those cases it's the right thing to do.
That applies to the mom and pop development companies all the way
up to a company the size of Microsoft.  Sometimes it's a good thing
to be paid for you and your company's efforts.

I wish more people would stop and think about why they write code
in the first place.  If you write code to make a living, or write
code to help others (like a volunteer might do), or if you write
code just because you feel like it, each may need a different
license.  Nobody's wrong to use BSD, GNU GPL, or any other license.
Nobody's evil or stupid or naive just because they make a certain
licensing choice.

Back to writing code (which I'm "free" to do) ... :)

--Matt

Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new

[Richard Stallman]

    Nobody's evil or stupid or naive just because they make a certain
    licensing choice.

It is a stretch to conclude anything about the general attitude or
character of a person from one action, so I would not say the people
who distribute non-free software are "evil people" in a general sense.
I will say they have done one thing that is evil: distributing a
non-free program.

Non-free software licenses are designed to divide and dominate the
users, denying them the basic freedoms for software users.  That's
what makes them non-free, and that is what makes it wrong.  Non-free
software is a social problem, one that we need to solve if computer
users are to have freedom.

There are many different ways people make money; some are ethical
while others involve mistreating others.  If we accept "making a
living" as a valid excuse to mistreat people, we will be mistreated
constantly.  There comes a time when we have to say that we are not
impressed by the argument that "We need to do this to people in order
to make a living."

Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new

[Rik van Riel]

On Mon, 21 Oct 2002, Richard Stallman wrote:

> If we accept "making a living" as a valid excuse to mistreat people, we
> will be mistreated constantly.

How about "funding the implementation of the items on the TODO list" ?

Rik
-- 
Bravely reimplemented by the knights who say "NIH".
http://www.surriel.com/		http://distro.conectiva.com/
Current spamtrap:  <a href=mailto:"october@surriel.com">october@surriel.com</a>

Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new

[Murray J. Root]

On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 11:12:53PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
>     Nobody's evil or stupid or naive just because they make a certain
>     licensing choice.
> 
> It is a stretch to conclude anything about the general attitude or
> character of a person from one action, so I would not say the people
> who distribute non-free software are "evil people" in a general sense.
> I will say they have done one thing that is evil: distributing a
> non-free program.
> 
> Non-free software licenses are designed to divide and dominate the
> users, denying them the basic freedoms for software users.  That's
> what makes them non-free, and that is what makes it wrong.  Non-free
> software is a social problem, one that we need to solve if computer
> users are to have freedom.
> 
> There are many different ways people make money; some are ethical
> while others involve mistreating others.  If we accept "making a
> living" as a valid excuse to mistreat people, we will be mistreated
> constantly.  There comes a time when we have to say that we are not
> impressed by the argument that "We need to do this to people in order
> to make a living."

It's a simple concept. I produced it, it's mine until I say otherwise.
You grant other laborers the right to profit from their labors, do you 
not? Setting standards the way you have is arbitrary and high-handed.
Calling people (or their actions) "evil" because they prefer to code 
for a living rather than dig ditches or answer telephones is rather 
arrogant and self-righteous. My charging for software *I* write is not
immoral or unethical - it is what I do and it is perfectly legitimate.
It is NOT the same as claiming a criminal/immoral/unethical act - you
still want me to produce software - you just want me to do it for free.
And no, I am not doing anything to people - they are free to not use my
software. The majority of the world gets along just fine without 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 

[OT] Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new

[Hacksaw]

>It is NOT the same as claiming a criminal/immoral/unethical act - you
>still want me to produce software - you just want me to do it for free.

I think RMS has made this clear a number of times. He doesn't expect 
programmers to produce software for free, he expects them to produce software 
that the end user can easily modify for their own applications, without legal 
or technical hassles.

He's happy for them to be paid for this work. 
-- 
Performance is impersonal yet intimate.
http://www.hacksaw.org -- http://www.privatecircus.com -- KB1FVD

Re: [OT] Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new

[Murray J. Root]

On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 01:26:20AM -0400, Hacksaw wrote:
> >It is NOT the same as claiming a criminal/immoral/unethical act - you
> >still want me to produce software - you just want me to do it for free.
> 
> I think RMS has made this clear a number of times. He doesn't expect 
> programmers to produce software for free, he expects them to produce software 
> that the end user can easily modify for their own applications, without legal 
> or technical hassles.
> 
> He's happy for them to be paid for this work. 

Without selling it? Rather tricky to accomplish. And yes, he does effectively
say selling it is wrong - when he says that users should be allowed to give
it away. If you can get it for free, why would you pay me? Don't tell me for
support - someone else does the support. I do the writing.
Basically, he's trying to set limits on what I do with what I created. There is
no justification for that.
I contribute time and effort to open source because I want to return something
for all the benefit I get out of it, not because some self-appointed arbiter of
morals tells me I should.

-- 
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 

Re: [OT] Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new

[Hacksaw]

> Without selling it? Rather tricky to accomplish. And yes, he does effectively
> say selling it is wrong - when he says that users should be allowed to give
> it away.

You know, I could come up with a bunch of ways to reply to this, but not without essentially regurgitating a lot of writing that available as a FAQ. And I'm sure that you could come up with a bunch of answers to that, and it all comes down to religion.

Never the less we are now very off topic.
-- 
A completion is a new beginning.
http://www.hacksaw.org -- http://www.privatecircus.com -- KB1FVD

Re: [OT] Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new

[David Lloyd]

Hang on a moment,

> Basically, he's trying to set limits on what I do with what I created.

But so do proprietary licences...and therein lies the problem. In fact
virtually any licence will set limits on what you can do with what you
created for some dfinition of "setting limits".

> I contribute time and effort to open source because I want to return
> something for all the benefit I get out of it, not because some
> self-appointed arbiter of morals tells me I should.

And therein lies the answer to the problem. Rather than stand around and
have a good old, foot stomping, nonsensical discussion which has
already been done to death before, let's just step aside and acknowledge
we're here because we want to be.

If some self-appointed arbiter decides to tell me I should be here, then
let him or her have his or her flights of fancy. Shockingly enough I
might actually agree with some or all of what that arbiter says. If I
don't agree with the reasons, surely the effects are the same: I am here
but not for the reasons given.

I've watched this thread silently and everyone--Stallman, Larry and all
the rest of us--are making perfect sense for our own world views. I
don't agree totally with any of them, I'll be modernist and pick and
choose from all of the view put forward and believe what I want. But the
effects are the same: I am here.

We need people with strong points of view, with a capability of putting
forward these points of views. The answer is to listen carefully to what
they really are saying and to follow what we believe is right.

Nothing more. Nothing less.

I'd be willing to invite Stallman or any other colourful characters who
apparently should be banned from the kernel mailing list to dinner and
discussion. I'm sure at the end of the night I'd find I couldn't support
all of their arguments in their entirety but I'd be a more well-informed
participant because of it.



DSL

-- The Linux C Programming
Lists: * http://lists.linux.org.au/listinfo/linuxcprogramming/
The Linux C++ Programming Lists:
 * http://lists.linux.org.au/listinfo/tuxcpprogramming/

Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new

[Roman Zippel]

Hi,

On Mon, 21 Oct 2002, Murray J. Root wrote:

> It's a simple concept. I produced it, it's mine until I say otherwise.
> You grant other laborers the right to profit from their labors, do you
> not?

Software isn't a product like others, once you've written it, you can
reproduce it indefinitely with almost no further costs. Profit is defined
as difference between the costs and the price you can realize on the
market. The market price is determined by supply and demand. What happens
now if a product is indefinitely available? The price drops until no
significant profit can be made anymore. (*)
So how is it possible to still make profit from an indefinitely available
product? The supply must be artifically limited by disallowing free trade
and withdrawing it from the free market. Whether this product is called
software, music, movie or information doesn't matter, they can only be
profitable, if access to it is limited.
The romantic picture of the kids one has to feed and which one wants to
take to the games is only useful to silence criticism. Larry should rather
be worried about their future, how will they access information? Can they
afford the in-depth information or has the base package to be enough, can
they easily share it with their friends?
We have to find ways now to keep information free and still allow the
people, who produce information (software, music or movies) to make a
living. Either that or we have to pay with our freedom.

bye, Roman

PS: (*) That's of course very simplified, in the short term these
mechanisms can be influenced, but hardly in the long term.
PPS: http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue7_3/soderberg/index.html

Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new

[Rik van Riel]

On Tue, 22 Oct 2002, Roman Zippel wrote:

> We have to find ways now to keep information free and still allow the
> people, who produce information (software, music or movies) to make a
> living. Either that or we have to pay with our freedom.

That tool is called copyright.  The author releases the work
and in exchange for that a TEMPORARY government protected
monopoly on commercial replication of that work is granted.

The main problem nowadays seems to be that:

1) the "temporary" has been extended by politicians into
   an effectively infinite time

2) the copyright holder has much more rights than those
   granted by copyright legislation (due to eg. DMCA and
   a on of other bought laws)

3) the work could be binary, it would be nice if the source
   code would also have to be released into the public domain
   after the copyright has expired

Rik
-- 
A: No.
Q: Should I include quotations after my reply?

http://www.surriel.com/		http://distro.conectiva.com/

Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new

[Henning P. Schmiedehausen]

Roman Zippel <zippel@linux-m68k.org> writes:

>Hi,

>On Mon, 21 Oct 2002, Murray J. Root wrote:

>> It's a simple concept. I produced it, it's mine until I say otherwise.
>> You grant other laborers the right to profit from their labors, do you
>> not?

>Software isn't a product like others, once you've written it, you can
>reproduce it indefinitely with almost no further costs. Profit is defined

Not if you can tie it to some "not indefinitely at no further costs
reproducable" item. E.g. Hardware. E.g. a serial number in hardware or
an encryption key.

<div sarcasm="true">
What? what? Sounds familiar? Maybe someone else came
to the same conclusions?
</div>

	Regards
		Henning

-- 
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen       -- Geschaeftsfuehrer
INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH     hps@intermeta.de

Am Schwabachgrund 22  Fon.: 09131 / 50654-0   info@intermeta.de
D-91054 Buckenhof     Fax.: 09131 / 50654-20   

Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new

[Eric W. Biederman]

Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com> writes:

> >       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.

Richard has seems not to have a precise edge in meaning, which makes his comments
rather inappropriate for a technical list, but otherwise he is not far
off the mark..  Implementing a system with freedom always means
finding a compromise between being able to do anything yourself, and
not allowing other people to do nasty things to you.

> 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.

Hogwash.  The BSD license has not provisions to keep the source code
freely available.  Consider what the world would be like if anyone was
allowed to do anything to you they wanted, if murder was legal.

The GPL forces people to respect others freedom to use a work so
covered.  That is still a power, but used in a good way.  The power
to silence criticism is definitely not a power that enhances anyones
freedom.

> 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 want the right to murder you can I have that?

Freedom is not about having the ability to do anything, without
punishment.  Only about having that ability so long as it does not
restrict the freedom of others.  Anti-hoarding seems to fit that
definition for me.

I do agree that the GPL is an imperfect enforcer of freedom.  It makes
it hard to mix and match GPL'd code with code that comes from another
source.
 
> 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.

All that needs to be admitted is that freedom has teeth.

Eric

Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new

[Larry McVoy]

> > 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.
> 
> Hogwash.  The BSD license has not provisions to keep the source code
> freely available.  Consider what the world would be like if anyone was
> allowed to do anything to you they wanted, if murder was legal.
> 
> The GPL forces people to respect others freedom to use a work so
> covered.  That is still a power, but used in a good way.  The power
> to silence criticism is definitely not a power that enhances anyones
> freedom.

Hogwash indeed.  Free means the freedom to do whatever you want.
Consider the US free speech.  Nobody says "this sort of speech is good
for the world, therefor it is the sanctioned form of free speech and
all other forms are prohibited".  That's not freedom, that's someone
playing God.  The GPL is *not* about freedom it is about forcing the
source code to be freely available.  And it does a fairly poor job of
that, if it really wanted to do so it would be far more simplistic about
it and say "any changes you make must be published within 24 hours or
your license is revoked".

All you are doing is saying that your goals are better than other goals.
That's not freedom, that is you deciding what is best for the world.
You may well be right, your goals may be what is best for the world.
None the less, that's not freedom.  That's Big Brother making decisions
for all "the little people" in the world.  And, surprise surprise, you
may not be right.  Freedom is about everyone have equal rights to make
their own choices, nobody died and elected you God.
-- 
---
Larry McVoy            	 lm at bitmover.com           http://www.bitmover.com/lm 

Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new

[Rob Landley]

On Sunday 20 October 2002 21:42, Larry McVoy wrote:

> > The GPL forces people to respect others freedom to use a work so
> > covered.  That is still a power, but used in a good way.  The power
> > to silence criticism is definitely not a power that enhances anyones
> > freedom.
>
> Hogwash indeed.  Free means the freedom to do whatever you want.
> Consider the US free speech.  Nobody says "this sort of speech is good
> for the world, therefor it is the sanctioned form of free speech and
> all other forms are prohibited".

Actually, they do.  Commercial speech can be more heavily regulated than 
non-commercial speech, and then of course there's the old "obscenity" bit.  
And of course the test of yelling "movie" in a crowed firehouse... :)

There are several important supreme court cases on this, attempting to 
delineate the bounds of the first amendment.

> playing God.  The GPL is *not* about freedom it is about forcing the
> source code to be freely available.

The GPL is about giving free software an immune system so that Forker du jour 
can't hire all your developers away to work on a closed fork of the codebase 
the way netscape gutted Mosaic, BSDi shredded the berkeley CSRG, and the two 
Lisp companies drained the original MIT AI lab.

Technically speaking, the bill of rights is a list of restrictions.  Can't 
shut people up, can't take the guns away, can't impose a religion on 
people...

> And it does a fairly poor job of that

Seems to have worked fine so far. :)

> if it really wanted to do so it would be far more simplistic about
> it and say "any changes you make must be published within 24 hours or
> your license is revoked".

Wouldn't hold up in court, for a number of reasons.

> All you are doing is saying that your goals are better than other goals.

Stallman isn't saying you can't put your code under the license you like.  
He's not really addressing you.  (I think he's written you off as a lost 
cause.)  He was talking to the rest of the kernel development list and going 
"What are you, NUTS?  There be strings attached!"  And they went "So why 
doesn't the FSF sponsor a bitcreeper replacement?"  And he has studiously 
chosen to ignore this, it seems.  Either that or his inbox runneth over...

> That's not freedom, that is you deciding what is best for the world.
> You may well be right, your goals may be what is best for the world.
> None the less, that's not freedom.  That's Big Brother making decisions
> for all "the little people" in the world.

The same could be said about the founding fathers and the constitution...

>  And, surprise surprise, you
> may not be right.  Freedom is about everyone have equal rights to make
> their own choices, nobody died and elected you God.

If freedom is about everyone having equal rights, then if everybody is locked 
up in the same size cell, we're all free.  (In prison you get to make any 
choice you want.  Whether or not you can act on it is another matter, but 
that's a pragmetic concern wherever you go.  It's easy to choose how to spend 
a million dollars...)

The difference between the utopian ideal of putting all your code in the 
public domain and licensing it under the GPL, is that the GPL works and 
putting our code in the public domain means, under our legal system, people 
can sue you if your "hello world" fails to cure cancer for them.

Who are you to take away their freedom to sue you by putting clauses in your 
license forbidding it? :)

Rob

Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new

[Eric W. Biederman]

Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com> writes:

> > > 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.
> > 
> > Hogwash.  The BSD license has not provisions to keep the source code
> > freely available.  Consider what the world would be like if anyone was
> > allowed to do anything to you they wanted, if murder was legal.
> > 
> > The GPL forces people to respect others freedom to use a work so
> > covered.  That is still a power, but used in a good way.  The power
> > to silence criticism is definitely not a power that enhances anyones
> > freedom.
> 
> Hogwash indeed.  Free means the freedom to do whatever you want.
> Consider the US free speech.  Nobody says "this sort of speech is good
> for the world, therefor it is the sanctioned form of free speech and
> all other forms are prohibited".  That's not freedom, that's someone
> playing God. 

In the US it is illegal to yell fire in a theater if there is no
fire.  That is there are forms of speech that are clearly bad.

> The GPL is *not* about freedom it is about forcing the
> source code to be freely available.

And freely modifiable.  Which sounds like freedom to me to do pretty
much what I want with the a program.

Code available under the BSD license is freely modifiable, but not
necessarily freely available.

Not being able to get the code sounds a lot less free to me.

> And it does a fairly poor job of
> that, if it really wanted to do so it would be far more simplistic about
> it and say "any changes you make must be published within 24 hours or
> your license is revoked".
> 
> All you are doing is saying that your goals are better than other goals.
> That's not freedom, that is you deciding what is best for the world.
> You may well be right, your goals may be what is best for the world.
> None the less, that's not freedom.  That's Big Brother making decisions
> for all "the little people" in the world.  And, surprise surprise, you
> may not be right.  Freedom is about everyone have equal rights to make
> their own choices, nobody died and elected you God.

Given I haven't forced anyone to use GPL'd software I am not forcing anyone
to do anything, unless they want to use my software.  Nor are you
forcing anyone to anything with BitKeeper.  And the kernel is setup so
no one has to use BitKeeper to develop the kernel. 

Using the Linux kernel as a tool to advocate only GPL'd software seems
inappropriate as those are not the aims of the kernel maintainers.  If
RMS wants that he is free to fork the kernel, or write a kernel that
with a license that prohibits people from using software you don't
like.

Eric

Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new

[Alexander Viro]

On 20 Oct 2002, Eric W. Biederman wrote:

> Using the Linux kernel as a tool to advocate only GPL'd software seems
> inappropriate as those are not the aims of the kernel maintainers.  If
> RMS wants that he is free to fork the kernel, or write a kernel that
> with a license that prohibits people from using software you don't
> like.

Having seen the software written by RMS, I'd say that you've missed one
crucial detail: s/write/write (and find suckers who would use)/.

RMS opinion might weight a lot more if he (and FSF programmers in general)
were capable of writing programs without terminal bloat and without huge
amount of security holes.  As it is, I'm willing to give them exactly the
same respect I give to other people writing code of such quality - Microsoft
employees.  Gates is kooky in one way, Stallman - in another, but both
can't write decent software, both are utterly devoid of taste and both profess
"features over fixing bugs" beliefs.

Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new

[Henning P. Schmiedehausen]

Alexander Viro <viro@math.psu.edu> writes:

>were capable of writing programs without terminal bloat and without huge
>amount of security holes.  As it is, I'm willing to give them exactly the

You expect security consciousness from someone who fights against passwords
and "user restrictions". Sheesh, give me a break. :-)

	Regards
		Henning

-- 
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen       -- Geschaeftsfuehrer
INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH     hps@intermeta.de

Am Schwabachgrund 22  Fon.: 09131 / 50654-0   info@intermeta.de
D-91054 Buckenhof     Fax.: 09131 / 50654-20   

Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new

[jbradford]

Larry,

I visited:

http://www.bitkeeper.com/

clicked on products, then clicked on downloads & status, and then
clicked on the link to the free use license, which links to:

http://www.bitkeeper.com/Sales.Licensing.Free.html

Presumably this can be considered a typical way to navigate through
the site.

The license I was presented with was the BitKeeper License version
1.37, 02/18/02.  This does not include the clause about the license
being unavailable to people who are developing a competing product to
Bitkeeper.

I pointed this out to you in a private E-Mail, but I didn't receive a
response - I think it is very confusing for people to believe that
they are licensed to use the product, only to later be told that they
are not.

John.

Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new

[Larry McVoy]

> The license I was presented with was the BitKeeper License version
> 1.37, 02/18/02.  This does not include the clause about the license
> being unavailable to people who are developing a competing product to
> Bitkeeper.
> 
> I pointed this out to you in a private E-Mail, but I didn't receive a
> response - I think it is very confusing for people to believe that
> they are licensed to use the product, only to later be told that they
> are not.

We've been working with IBM to try and come up with a revision of the license
which addresses some of the problems.  When we get done we'll update the
website.

By the way, the non-compete clause was put in because I figured the standard
"no reverse engineering" clause would cause even more fuss.    Little did 
I know.
-- 
---
Larry McVoy            	 lm at bitmover.com           http://www.bitmover.com/lm 

Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new

[Nicholas Wourms]

Richard Stallman wrote:

[SNIP Usual RMS Rant]

+--------------+
|  Don't feed  |
|  the trolls  |
|              |
|  thank you   |
+--------------+
      | |
      | |
      | |
      | |
  ....\ /....

Cheers,
Nicholas

Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new

[Jon Portnoy]

On Sat, 19 Oct 2002, Nicholas Wourms wrote:

> Richard Stallman wrote:
> 
> [SNIP Usual RMS Rant]
> 
> +--------------+
> |  Don't feed  |
> |  the trolls  |
> |              |
> |  thank you   |
> +--------------+
>       | |
>       | |
>       | |
>       | |
>   ....\ /....
> 
> Cheers,
> Nicholas
> 
> 

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.

Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new

[Murray J. Root]

On Sat, Oct 19, 2002 at 10:00:08PM -0400, Jon Portnoy wrote:
> 
> 
> On Sat, 19 Oct 2002, Nicholas Wourms wrote:
> 
> > Richard Stallman wrote:
> > 
> > [SNIP Usual RMS Rant]
> > 
> > +--------------+
> > |  Don't feed  |
> > |  the trolls  |
> > |              |
> > |  thank you   |
> > +--------------+
> >       | |
> >       | |
> >       | |
> >       | |
> >   ....\ /....
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > Nicholas
> > 
> > 
> 
> 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 

Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new

[Mark Mielke]

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.

mark

-- 
mark@mielke.cc/markm@ncf.ca/markm@nortelnetworks.com __________________________
.  .  _  ._  . .   .__    .  . ._. .__ .   . . .__  | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/    |_     |\/|  |  |_  |   |/  |_   | 
|  | | | | \ | \   |__ .  |  | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__  | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

  One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
                       and in the darkness bind them...

                           http://mark.mielke.cc/

Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new

[Nicholas Wourms]

Jon Portnoy wrote:

> 
> 
> On Sat, 19 Oct 2002, Nicholas Wourms wrote:
> 
>> Richard Stallman wrote:
>> 
>> [SNIP Usual RMS Rant]
>> 
>> +--------------+
>> |  Don't feed  |
>> |  the trolls  |
>> |              |
>> |  thank you   |
>> +--------------+
>>       | |
>>       | |
>>       | |
>>       | |
>>   ....\ /....
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Nicholas
>> 
>> 
> 
> 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.

Cheers,
Nicholas

Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new

[Zac Hansen]

> 
> 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.

--Zac

Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new

[Mark Mielke]

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.

mark

-- 
mark@mielke.cc/markm@ncf.ca/markm@nortelnetworks.com __________________________
.  .  _  ._  . .   .__    .  . ._. .__ .   . . .__  | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/    |_     |\/|  |  |_  |   |/  |_   | 
|  | | | | \ | \   |__ .  |  | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__  | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

  One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
                       and in the darkness bind them...

                           http://mark.mielke.cc/

Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new

[Aaron Lehmann]

On Sun, Oct 20, 2002 at 04:40:56AM -0400, Mark Mielke wrote:
> Ask Richard if GCC was ever initially bootstrapped using a non-GPL
> compiler suite.

Ah, but that's the point!

The bitkeeper license won't allow you to bootstrap a competing project
using bitkeeper. If the same clauses existed in the licenses of these
commercial compilers, we wouldn't have GCC.

Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new

[David Lang]

correction, bitkeeper doesn't let you bootstrap for free. if you buy a
bitkeeper licence then you can do anything with it you want.

the limit is only on the FREE use of bitkeeper.

David Lang

On Sun, 20 Oct 2002, Aaron Lehmann wrote:

> Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 02:00:15 -0700
> From: Aaron Lehmann <aaronl@vitelus.com>
> To: Mark Mielke <mark@mark.mielke.cc>
> Cc: Zac Hansen <xaxxon@chopper.slackworks.com>,
>      Nicholas Wourms <nwourms@netscape.net>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new
>
> On Sun, Oct 20, 2002 at 04:40:56AM -0400, Mark Mielke wrote:
> > Ask Richard if GCC was ever initially bootstrapped using a non-GPL
> > compiler suite.
>
> Ah, but that's the point!
>
> The bitkeeper license won't allow you to bootstrap a competing project
> using bitkeeper. If the same clauses existed in the licenses of these
> commercial compilers, we wouldn't have GCC.
> -
> 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/
>

Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new

[Alexander Viro]

On Sun, 20 Oct 2002, Aaron Lehmann wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 20, 2002 at 04:40:56AM -0400, Mark Mielke wrote:
> > Ask Richard if GCC was ever initially bootstrapped using a non-GPL
> > compiler suite.
> 
> Ah, but that's the point!
> 
> The bitkeeper license won't allow you to bootstrap a competing project
> using bitkeeper. If the same clauses existed in the licenses of these
> commercial compilers, we wouldn't have GCC.

<raised brows>

_really_?

No, really?

How quaint.  So RMS et.al. would be unable to implement a simple C compiler
in MACRO-10 and use it for bootstrap?  Or clone aforementioned MACRO-10?
Pathetic.  And I suspect undeserved - I'm no fan of RMS, but I don't believe
that what you claim is true.

Now could we fscking take that crap to some place where it would be on-topic?

Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new

[Henning P. Schmiedehausen]

Aaron Lehmann <aaronl@vitelus.com> writes:

>On Sun, Oct 20, 2002 at 04:40:56AM -0400, Mark Mielke wrote:
>> Ask Richard if GCC was ever initially bootstrapped using a non-GPL
>> compiler suite.

>Ah, but that's the point!

>The bitkeeper license won't allow you to bootstrap a competing project
>using bitkeeper. If the same clauses existed in the licenses of these
>commercial compilers, we wouldn't have GCC.

WRONG! 

IT DOES. YOU JUST HAVE TO BUY BK. Same as RMS might have to buy the
compiler he used to bootstrap gcc (Or MIT did buy it).

There is no clause where Larry said "You might not use bk at all to write
SCM software". That's why I asked about "free beer" a while ago.

	Regards
		Henning

-- 
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen       -- Geschaeftsfuehrer
INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH     hps@intermeta.de

Am Schwabachgrund 22  Fon.: 09131 / 50654-0   info@intermeta.de
D-91054 Buckenhof     Fax.: 09131 / 50654-20   

Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new

[jbradford]

> > 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.

As far as I know:

It was initially developed as a C front end to VUCK, but was later
re-written, using none of the VUCK code, but initially keeping parts
of the C front end.  The GNU project was originally developed without
using any proprietary software.

So, non-GPL software was used, but the software that was used was, at
least to begin with, all non-proprietary.

John

Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new

[Mark Mielke]

On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 01:46:04PM +0100, jbradford@dial.pipex.com wrote:
> It was initially developed as a C front end to VUCK, but was later
> re-written, using none of the VUCK code, but initially keeping parts
> of the C front end.  The GNU project was originally developed without
> using any proprietary software.

> So, non-GPL software was used, but the software that was used was, at
> least to begin with, all non-proprietary.

Even if this was true (I have no reason to doubt it)...

Is the idea that "Free Software Providers" must use "Free Software" to
produce a reasonable decree from the king of "Free Software"?

Is it reasonable that if I happen to have some super fancy memory allocation
routines that automatically locate and resolve all memory leaks in my
program, I *cannot use it when producing GPL code* as the software was
purchased?

This becomes hypocrisy. RMS hates Bit Keeper because it requires people in
competing fields to purchase a license, but RMS feels that people are doing
acts of "evil" by using software that isn't "Free" (RMS TM).

Basically... RMS gets to choose your software for you...

Which is completely besides the *real* point. CVS is crap for larger
products, and Sub-Version (and other competitors) are only in their
initial stages of life. If something better than Bit Keeper existed for
free, doesn't RMS have enough faith in the people who develop Linux to
*TRUST* that they would be using it already?

RMS is setting standards based on his own personal agenda that allows
him to be king of "Free" software. I don't want a king. I want the
freedom to produce free software in the way that *I* find most
convenient, completely free of political crap. If I wanted to be a
policitian, I wouldn't have learned C.

mark

-- 
mark@mielke.cc/markm@ncf.ca/markm@nortelnetworks.com __________________________
.  .  _  ._  . .   .__    .  . ._. .__ .   . . .__  | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/    |_     |\/|  |  |_  |   |/  |_   | 
|  | | | | \ | \   |__ .  |  | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__  | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

  One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
                       and in the darkness bind them...

                           http://mark.mielke.cc/

[FLAMEWAR] Bitkeeper waffle

[jbradford]

> On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 01:46:04PM +0100, jbradford@dial.pipex.com wrote:
> > It was initially developed as a C front end to VUCK, but was later
> > re-written, using none of the VUCK code, but initially keeping parts
> > of the C front end.  The GNU project was originally developed without
> > using any proprietary software.
> 
> > So, non-GPL software was used, but the software that was used was, at
> > least to begin with, all non-proprietary.
> 
> Even if this was true (I have no reason to doubt it)...
> 
> Is the idea that "Free Software Providers" must use "Free Software" to
> produce a reasonable decree from the king of "Free Software"?

It's up to everybody to decide what suits them.  I was only answering
a question about the GNU project, I wasn't trying to tell anybody what
software they should and shouldn't use.

John.

Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new

[Zwane Mwaikambo]

On Sun, 20 Oct 2002, Zac Hansen wrote:

> This email, is also off topic for the lkml, which is why I'm not posting 
> to everyone on the list.

Thanks for sparing us...

-- 
function.linuxpower.ca

Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new

[Henning P. Schmiedehausen]

Zac Hansen <xaxxon@chopper.slackworks.com> writes:

>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, 

No, it is not. This was stated again and again. Linux is fun. If it
succeeds in "world domination", fine. If not, fine, too. 

As far as I understood Linux, it is not about politics. Else, none of
the core developers would have agreed to bk.

	Regards
		Henning


-- 
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen       -- Geschaeftsfuehrer
INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH     hps@intermeta.de

Am Schwabachgrund 22  Fon.: 09131 / 50654-0   info@intermeta.de
D-91054 Buckenhof     Fax.: 09131 / 50654-20   

Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new

[Mark Mielke]

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.

mark

-- 
mark@mielke.cc/markm@ncf.ca/markm@nortelnetworks.com __________________________
.  .  _  ._  . .   .__    .  . ._. .__ .   . . .__  | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/    |_     |\/|  |  |_  |   |/  |_   | 
|  | | | | \ | \   |__ .  |  | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__  | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

  One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
                       and in the darkness bind them...

                           http://mark.mielke.cc/

Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new

[Richard Stallman]

    > 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.

He is not entitled to control how others judge him.  Nobody is
entitled to that.  The "freedom not to be judged" would mean the power
to shut off debate about your actions.

Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new

[Nicolas Pitre]

On Mon, 21 Oct 2002, Richard Stallman wrote:

> He is not entitled to control how others judge him.  Nobody is
> entitled to that.  The "freedom not to be judged" would mean the power
> to shut off debate about your actions.

True.

Now please just understand that people are not entitled to agree with you or 
follow your advice.

As you just demonstrated above you can't disconnect "freedom" and "power".

To have the freedom to use free software you need the power to do so.

Of course people have the power to ignore you, but it's their freedom to do
so.

Aren't we making circles here?

Richard, please, stop making a fool of yourself.  The only power behind the
GPL is actual code.  If it wasn't because of the existence of the GNU/Linux
_code_ then Microsoft wouldn't care a whit about the GPL like it does now.

Therefore the only real lever you have against BitKeeper or whatever else is
to write a GPL equivalent.  Until it happens please assume that those who
chose to use the tool they want are exercising their freedom since it was
made certain that no one is forced into using BK for Linux development
already.


Nicolas

Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new

[Allen Campbell]

On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 01:56:05PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> 
> Now please just understand that people are not entitled to agree with you or 
> follow your advice.

"People" are entitled to agree with whomever they wish, including
Stallman.

> As you just demonstrated above you can't disconnect "freedom" and "power".
 
No such thing was demonstrated.  That someone lacks the power to
silence critics does not imply that they lack the freedom to do
things that others criticize.

> To have the freedom to use free software you need the power to do so.
> 
> Of course people have the power to ignore you, but it's their freedom to do
> so.
> 

> Aren't we making circles here?

Indeed, you are.

<snip>
> Therefore the only real lever you have against BitKeeper or whatever else is
> to write a GPL equivalent.  Until it happens please assume that those who
> chose to use the tool they want are exercising their freedom since it was
> made certain that no one is forced into using BK for Linux development
> already.

The ability to participate in Linux development without using BK
is not some benevolent gift, granted from on-high by Linus as a
favor to those who object to BK.  It is assured by the GPL regardless
of some specific developers policy with regard to what tools are
used.  No one had to "make certain that no one is forced."  The
power to "force" doesn't exist.

-- 
  Allen Campbell       |  Lurking at the bottom of the
  allenc@verinet.com   |   gravity well, getting old.

Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new

[Nicolas Pitre]

On Tue, 22 Oct 2002, Allen Campbell wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 01:56:05PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > Therefore the only real lever you have against BitKeeper or whatever else is
> > to write a GPL equivalent.  Until it happens please assume that those who
> > chose to use the tool they want are exercising their freedom since it was
> > made certain that no one is forced into using BK for Linux development
> > already.
> 
> The ability to participate in Linux development without using BK
> is not some benevolent gift, granted from on-high by Linus as a
> favor to those who object to BK.  It is assured by the GPL regardless
> of some specific developers policy with regard to what tools are
> used.  No one had to "make certain that no one is forced."  The
> power to "force" doesn't exist.

Whatever.  

So what's your own particular problem with BK again if you don't have to use
it?

I hope you still have the hability to write and contribute GPL'ed code.


Nicolas

Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new

[Allen Campbell]

On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 04:32:54PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> 
> So what's your own particular problem with BK again if you don't have to use
> it?

I didn't mention that I had a problem with it.  I do have some
questions.

If I one day had the idea of building a filesystem where version
control is inherent, could this be done with BK?  Further, I
understand the design of EXT3 uses a form of multiversion concurrency
to ensure metadata integrity.  Does this constitute "substantially
similar capabilities?"  That's pretty damn vague.

> I hope you still have the hability to write and contribute GPL'ed code.

-- 
  Allen Campbell       |  Lurking at the bottom of the
  allenc@verinet.com   |   gravity well, getting old.

Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new

[Richard Stallman]

People who disagree with my views about free software often say that
it is ineffective for me to talk about them.  The ways they say this
are as boundless as human imagination, but the message is the same:
"No one agrees with you, no one cares, you are wasting your time, your
efforts are totally ineffective."

However, other evidence shows that some people are paying attention
even if others are not.  Talking about principles encourages people to
think about them, and that has an influence.  In the long run, it has
been very effective--merely writing code would have achieved little.

I conclude that the reason people insist so strongly that no one is
listening is precisely because that isn't so.  The aim of these
messages is to cause discouragement.  After recognizing this, one can
easily avoid believing them.

      Until it happens please assume that those who
    chose to use the tool they want are exercising their freedom

They are exercising a legal right to do something foolish and
harmful.  Freedom does not mean nobody can criticize you.

Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new

[Mark Mielke]

On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 03:10:38AM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> However, other evidence shows that some people are paying attention
> even if others are not.  Talking about principles encourages people to
> think about them, and that has an influence.  In the long run, it has
> been very effective--merely writing code would have achieved little.

On the contrary - without code, GPL means very little.

mark

-- 
mark@mielke.cc/markm@ncf.ca/markm@nortelnetworks.com __________________________
.  .  _  ._  . .   .__    .  . ._. .__ .   . . .__  | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/    |_     |\/|  |  |_  |   |/  |_   | 
|  | | | | \ | \   |__ .  |  | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__  | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

  One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
                       and in the darkness bind them...

                           http://mark.mielke.cc/

Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new

[Richard Stallman]

    > even if others are not.  Talking about principles encourages people to
    > think about them, and that has an influence.  In the long run, it has
    > been very effective--merely writing code would have achieved little.

    On the contrary - without code, GPL means very little.

That does not contradict what I said.  You're talking about a
different though related question.

Any software license gets its main effect from being applied to
certain code.  But the code alone would not spread the philosophy of
free software.  To do that, we must talk about the philosophy.  If I
had only written free software, and not explained about the freedom it
gives you, the code might have contributed to the advance of
technology but it would not have contributed much to the advance of
human freedom.

Re: Bitkeeper outragem, old and new

[Jeff Garzik]

Richard,

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

Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new

[Russ Allbery]

Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com> writes:

> If you keep a copy locally, sure.  But the upstream sources, i.e. what's
> important, you lose rights to even though you may have contributed
> substantial amounts of code.  IOW if binutils goes off in a direction
> you don't like, for example the FSF changes the license from GPL to
> Microsoft EULA, you don't have any say in the matter whatsoever.  You're
> left with a code fork based on the last GPL sources and/or the patches
> you've kept locally.

Jeff, have you read an FSF copyright assignment?

It doesn't just say "I give you all rights to my work so that you can do
whatever you want with it."

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new

[Jeff Garzik]

Russ Allbery wrote:
> Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com> writes:
> 
> 
>>If you keep a copy locally, sure.  But the upstream sources, i.e. what's
>>important, you lose rights to even though you may have contributed
>>substantial amounts of code.  IOW if binutils goes off in a direction
>>you don't like, for example the FSF changes the license from GPL to
>>Microsoft EULA, you don't have any say in the matter whatsoever.  You're
>>left with a code fork based on the last GPL sources and/or the patches
>>you've kept locally.
> 
> 
> Jeff, have you read an FSF copyright assignment?

yes, many times thank you.


> It doesn't just say "I give you all rights to my work so that you can do
> whatever you want with it."

Indeed.  It continues on, to make legally-questionable assertions about 
source code availability and royalties, that one IP lawyer I spoke with 
informally thinks is complete bunk.  I would like to see "The Foundation 
promises..." to hold up in any court.

	Jeff

Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new

[Russ Allbery]

Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com> writes:

> Indeed.  It continues on, to make legally-questionable assertions about
> source code availability and royalties, that one IP lawyer I spoke with
> informally thinks is complete bunk.  I would like to see "The Foundation
> promises..." to hold up in any court.

Ah, so rather than it just not addressing any of the stuff you're talking
about, it *does* address it but you think that the way it does is legally
questionable.  Thank you, that's much clearer.  I wish you would have said
that in the first place.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new

[walt]

Larry McVoy wrote:
.
.
.
> All you are doing is saying that your goals are better than other goals.
> That's not freedom, that is you deciding what is best for the world...

Karl Marx and Ayn Rand would be contributing to this thread by now if
they weren't both indisposed ;-)

The concept of self-sacrifice for the good of the community (altruism)
was central to their ideas:  Marx thought altruism should be mandatory,
Rand thought it should be forbidden (because, in general, anything which
isn't forbidden is mandatory).

RMS is trying to thread a path between Marx and Rand, and naturally is
pissing off people on both sides.  Not an enviable lot in life, but at
least he picked it himself.

Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new

[Roman Zippel]

Hi,

On Mon, 21 Oct 2002, walt wrote:

> The concept of self-sacrifice for the good of the community (altruism)
> was central to their ideas:  Marx thought altruism should be mandatory,

Any reference that Marx ever 'thought' something like this?
I know it's getting terrible offtopic, but this is such common
misconception. Marx delivered in first place an excellent analysis of the
capitalistic economy, which is still very much valid today. If you want to
know why current economy is going downhill, you'll will more likely find
answers there than from any of the "experts" today.
Anything else is mostly interpreted into Marx, you will hardly find any
predictions about what would come after the capitalism.

bye, Roman