Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new

[Jon Portnoy <portnoy@tellink.net>]

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?