From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+willy=40w.ods.org@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id <S261774AbSJMWma>; Sun, 13 Oct 2002 18:42:30 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S261775AbSJMWma>; Sun, 13 Oct 2002 18:42:30 -0400
Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]:40596 "EHLO
	fencepost.gnu.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id <S261774AbSJMWma>; Sun, 13 Oct 2002 18:42:30 -0400
From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Bitkeeper outragem, old and new
Reply-to: rms@gnu.org
Message-Id: <E180rX3-0005dL-00@fencepost.gnu.org>
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 18:48:22 -0400
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.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.

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.