Bitkeeper outragem, old and new
Richard Stallman (rms@gnu.org)
Sun, 13 Oct 2002 18:48:22 -0400
- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Andries Brouwer: "Re: Patch: linux-2.5.42/kernel/sys.c - warm reboot should not suspend devices"
- Previous message: Andrea Arcangeli: "Re: 2.4.20-pre10aa1 oops report (was Re: Linux-2.4.20-pre8-aa2 oops report. [solved])"
- Next in thread: Rik van Riel: "Re: Bitkeeper outragem, old and new"
- Reply: Rik van Riel: "Re: Bitkeeper outragem, old and new"
- Reply: William Lee Irwin III: "Re: Bitkeeper outragem, old and new"
- Reply: Larry McVoy: "Re: Bitkeeper outragem, old and new"
- Reply: Rando Christensen: "Re: Bitkeeper outragem, old and new"
- Reply: Henning P. Schmiedehausen: "Re: Bitkeeper outragem, old and new"
- Reply: Henning P. Schmiedehausen: "Re: Bitkeeper outragem, old and new"
- Reply: Christoph Hellwig: "Re: Bitkeeper outragem, old and new"
- Reply: Pekka Savola: "Re: Bitkeeper outragem, old and new"
- Reply: Jeff Garzik: "Re: Bitkeeper outragem, old and new"
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.
-
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/
- Next message: Andries Brouwer: "Re: Patch: linux-2.5.42/kernel/sys.c - warm reboot should not suspend devices"
- Previous message: Andrea Arcangeli: "Re: 2.4.20-pre10aa1 oops report (was Re: Linux-2.4.20-pre8-aa2 oops report. [solved])"
- Next in thread: Rik van Riel: "Re: Bitkeeper outragem, old and new"
- Reply: Rik van Riel: "Re: Bitkeeper outragem, old and new"
- Reply: William Lee Irwin III: "Re: Bitkeeper outragem, old and new"
- Reply: Larry McVoy: "Re: Bitkeeper outragem, old and new"
- Reply: Rando Christensen: "Re: Bitkeeper outragem, old and new"
- Reply: Henning P. Schmiedehausen: "Re: Bitkeeper outragem, old and new"
- Reply: Henning P. Schmiedehausen: "Re: Bitkeeper outragem, old and new"
- Reply: Christoph Hellwig: "Re: Bitkeeper outragem, old and new"
- Reply: Pekka Savola: "Re: Bitkeeper outragem, old and new"
- Reply: Jeff Garzik: "Re: Bitkeeper outragem, old and new"