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.

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 <S261773AbSJMWyZ>; Sun, 13 Oct 2002 18:54:25 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S261776AbSJMWyZ>; Sun, 13 Oct 2002 18:54:25 -0400
Received: from 2-225.ctame701-1.telepar.net.br ([200.193.160.225]:23003 "EHLO
	2-225.ctame701-1.telepar.net.br") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id <S261773AbSJMWyZ>; Sun, 13 Oct 2002 18:54:25 -0400
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 21:00:02 -0200 (BRST)
From: Rik van Riel <riel@conectiva.com.br>
X-X-Sender: riel@imladris.surriel.com
To: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Bitkeeper outragem, old and new
In-Reply-To: <E180rX3-0005dL-00@fencepost.gnu.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L.0210132057430.22735-100000@imladris.surriel.com>
X-spambait: aardvark@kernelnewbies.org
X-spammeplease: aardvark@nl.linux.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

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>


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 <S261766AbSJMWzJ>; Sun, 13 Oct 2002 18:55:09 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S261778AbSJMWzI>; Sun, 13 Oct 2002 18:55:08 -0400
Received: from holomorphy.com ([66.224.33.161]:51595 "EHLO holomorphy")
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id <S261766AbSJMWzG>;
	Sun, 13 Oct 2002 18:55:06 -0400
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 15:57:18 -0700
From: William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com>
To: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Bitkeeper outragem, old and new
Message-ID: <20021013225718.GG2032@holomorphy.com>
Mail-Followup-To: William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com>,
	Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <E180rX3-0005dL-00@fencepost.gnu.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <E180rX3-0005dL-00@fencepost.gnu.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.25i
Organization: The Domain of Holomorphy
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

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

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

Our position:

1) No free licenses for our competition, they can buy them if they like.
2) The software is not open source because the open source business model
   doesn't have a prayer of supporting the development costs.
3) If you had built a decent system instead of sitting around and whining,
   we could be doing something else instead of sitting around listening 
   to your whining.

On Sun, Oct 13, 2002 at 06:48:22PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> The new restrictions on Bitkeeper, saying that people who contribute
> to CVS or Subversion and even companies that distribute them cannot
> even run Bitkeeper, have sparked outrage.  
> restrictions are new, their spirit fits perfectly with the previous
> Bitkeeper license.
> 
> The spirit of the Bitkeeper license is the spirit of the whip hand.
> It is the spirit that says, "You have no right to use Bitkeeper, only
> temporary privileges that we can revoke.  Be grateful that we allow
> you to use Bitkeeper.  Be grateful, and don't do anything we dislike,
> or we may revoke those privileges."  It is the spirit of proprietary
> software.  Every non-free license is designed to control the users
> more or less.  Outrage at this spirit is the reason for the free
> software movement.  (By contrast, the open source movement prefers to
> play down this same outrage.)
> 
> If the latest outrage brings the spirit of the non-free Bitkeeper
> license into clear view, perhaps that will be enough to convince the
> developers of Linux to stop using Bitkeeper for Linux development.
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

-- 
---
Larry McVoy            	 lm at bitmover.com           http://www.bitmover.com/lm 

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 <S261798AbSJNCPy>; Sun, 13 Oct 2002 22:15:54 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S261799AbSJNCPy>; Sun, 13 Oct 2002 22:15:54 -0400
Received: from xanthor.net ([64.215.178.124]:11218 "HELO xanthor.net")
	by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id <S261798AbSJNCPx>;
	Sun, 13 Oct 2002 22:15:53 -0400
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 17:43:07 -0600
From: Rando Christensen <rando@babblica.net>
To: rms@gnu.org
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Bitkeeper outragem, old and new
Message-Id: <20021013174307.11681d47.rando@babblica.net>
In-Reply-To: <E180rX3-0005dL-00@fencepost.gnu.org>
References: <E180rX3-0005dL-00@fencepost.gnu.org>
Organization: Babblica
X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.2claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; )
digiw00tX: v1.0
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

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>

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 <S261914AbSJNGnh>; Mon, 14 Oct 2002 02:43:37 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S261916AbSJNGnh>; Mon, 14 Oct 2002 02:43:37 -0400
Received: from white-ippp0.koehntopp.de ([195.244.233.49]:8412 "EHLO
	white.koehntopp.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id <S261914AbSJNGng>; Mon, 14 Oct 2002 02:43:36 -0400
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 08:49:22 +0200
From: Kristian Koehntopp <kris@koehntopp.de>
To: Larry McVoy <lm@work.bitmover.com>, Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Bitkeeper outragem, old and new
Message-ID: <20021014064922.GA16052@white.koehntopp.de>
References: <E180rX3-0005dL-00@fencepost.gnu.org> <20021013171840.B1011@work.bitmover.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20021013171840.B1011@work.bitmover.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.27i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

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

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 <S261843AbSJNGzI>; Mon, 14 Oct 2002 02:55:08 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S261844AbSJNGzI>; Mon, 14 Oct 2002 02:55:08 -0400
Received: from AGrenoble-101-1-1-171.abo.wanadoo.fr ([193.251.23.171]:51602
	"EHLO awak") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id <S261843AbSJNGzI> convert rfc822-to-8bit;
	Mon, 14 Oct 2002 02:55:08 -0400
Subject: Re: Bitkeeper outragem, old and new
From: Xavier Bestel <xavier.bestel@free.fr>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@conectiva.com.br>
Cc: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>,
       Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44L.0210132057430.22735-100000@imladris.surriel.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44L.0210132057430.22735-100000@imladris.surriel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.8 
Date: 14 Oct 2002 09:00:50 +0200
Message-Id: <1034578850.907.2.camel@bip>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

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 ..



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 <S261860AbSJNHcb>; Mon, 14 Oct 2002 03:32:31 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S261862AbSJNHca>; Mon, 14 Oct 2002 03:32:30 -0400
Received: from adsl-64-166-241-227.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net ([64.166.241.227]:6585
	"EHLO www.hockin.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id <S261860AbSJNHca>; Mon, 14 Oct 2002 03:32:30 -0400
From: Tim Hockin <thockin@hockin.org>
Message-Id: <200210140738.g9E7cFs02932@www.hockin.org>
Subject: Re: Bitkeeper outragem, old and new
To: kris@koehntopp.de (Kristian Koehntopp)
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 00:38:15 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: lm@work.bitmover.com (Larry McVoy), rms@gnu.org (Richard Stallman),
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
In-Reply-To: <20021014064922.GA16052@white.koehntopp.de> from "Kristian Koehntopp" at Oct 14, 2002 08:49:22 AM
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL3]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

> 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!

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 <S261587AbSJNLfI>; Mon, 14 Oct 2002 07:35:08 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S261590AbSJNLfI>; Mon, 14 Oct 2002 07:35:08 -0400
Received: from mail.hometree.net ([212.34.181.120]:2182 "EHLO
	mail.hometree.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id <S261587AbSJNLfH>; Mon, 14 Oct 2002 07:35:07 -0400
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Path: forge.intermeta.de!not-for-mail
From: "Henning P. Schmiedehausen" <hps@intermeta.de>
Newsgroups: hometree.linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Bitkeeper outragem, old and new
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 11:40:58 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH
Message-ID: <aoeaga$svr$1@forge.intermeta.de>
References: <E180rX3-0005dL-00@fencepost.gnu.org> <20021013171840.B1011@work.bitmover.com> <20021014064922.GA16052@white.koehntopp.de>
Reply-To: hps@intermeta.de
NNTP-Posting-Host: forge.intermeta.de
X-Trace: tangens.hometree.net 1034595658 11674 212.34.181.4 (14 Oct 2002 11:40:58 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@intermeta.de
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 11:40:58 +0000 (UTC)
X-Copyright: (C) 1996-2002 Henning Schmiedehausen
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.1 (NOV)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

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   

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 <S261515AbSJNLb3>; Mon, 14 Oct 2002 07:31:29 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S261569AbSJNLb2>; Mon, 14 Oct 2002 07:31:28 -0400
Received: from mail.hometree.net ([212.34.181.120]:57477 "EHLO
	mail.hometree.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id <S261515AbSJNLb2>; Mon, 14 Oct 2002 07:31:28 -0400
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Path: forge.intermeta.de!not-for-mail
From: "Henning P. Schmiedehausen" <hps@intermeta.de>
Newsgroups: hometree.linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Bitkeeper outragem, old and new
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 11:37:19 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH
Message-ID: <aoea9f$stf$1@forge.intermeta.de>
References: <E180rX3-0005dL-00@fencepost.gnu.org> <20021013171840.B1011@work.bitmover.com>
Reply-To: hps@intermeta.de
NNTP-Posting-Host: forge.intermeta.de
X-Trace: tangens.hometree.net 1034595439 11566 212.34.181.4 (14 Oct 2002 11:37:19 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@intermeta.de
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 11:37:19 +0000 (UTC)
X-Copyright: (C) 1996-2002 Henning Schmiedehausen
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.1 (NOV)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

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   

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 <S261757AbSJNP44>; Mon, 14 Oct 2002 11:56:56 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S261861AbSJNP44>; Mon, 14 Oct 2002 11:56:56 -0400
Received: from carisma.slowglass.com ([195.224.96.167]:23310 "EHLO
	phoenix.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id <S261757AbSJNP44>; Mon, 14 Oct 2002 11:56:56 -0400
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 17:02:48 +0100
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Bitkeeper outragem, old and new
Message-ID: <20021014170248.A19897@infradead.org>
Mail-Followup-To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
	Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <E180rX3-0005dL-00@fencepost.gnu.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i
In-Reply-To: <E180rX3-0005dL-00@fencepost.gnu.org>; from rms@gnu.org on Sun, Oct 13, 2002 at 06:48:22PM -0400
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

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.


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 <S262019AbSJNQdl>; Mon, 14 Oct 2002 12:33:41 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S262020AbSJNQdl>; Mon, 14 Oct 2002 12:33:41 -0400
Received: from netcore.fi ([193.94.160.1]:28164 "EHLO netcore.fi")
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id <S262019AbSJNQdi>;
	Mon, 14 Oct 2002 12:33:38 -0400
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 19:39:28 +0300 (EEST)
From: Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>
To: Kristian Koehntopp <kris@koehntopp.de>
cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Bitkeeper outragem, old and new
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0210141933120.25194-100000@netcore.fi>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Sun, Oct 13, 2002 at 05:18:40PM -0700, Larry McVoy wrote:
> > 3) If you had built a decent system instead of sitting around and whining,
> >    we could be doing something else instead of sitting around listening 
> >    to your whining.
>
> Larry, rest assured that exactly this is happinging right now
> all over the world. You are not feeling the backlash now,
> because it takes time, but it will happen, and you made pretty
> much sure of that. 
>
> You are pulling a Qt. By changing the license to BK to
> discourage development of BK alternatives you made sure that
> Subversion and other projects get plenty of new and highly
> motivated developers - you actually encouraged the development
> of BK alternatives just like the non-free license of Qt as the
> foundation of KDE spawned the Gnome project.
>
> The clock just started ticking and when we reevaluate this
> discussion in one or two years time, the complete strategic
> stupidity of this particular license change from BKs POV view
> will be evident.

I agree 100%; I'll just add one word:

OpenSSH

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
Netcore Oy                   not those you stumble over and fall"
Systems. Networks. Security.  -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords


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 <S261984AbSJNQua>; Mon, 14 Oct 2002 12:50:30 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S262060AbSJNQua>; Mon, 14 Oct 2002 12:50:30 -0400
Received: from parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk ([195.92.249.252]:54546 "EHLO
	www.linux.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id <S261984AbSJNQu3>;
	Mon, 14 Oct 2002 12:50:29 -0400
Message-ID: <3DAAF717.6030306@pobox.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 12:55:51 -0400
From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rms@gnu.org
CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Bitkeeper outragem, old and new
References: <E180rX3-0005dL-00@fencepost.gnu.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

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