http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=105855801706434&w=2
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: linux-kernel
Subject: Bitkeeper
From: Richard Stallman <rms () gnu ! org>
Date: 2003-07-18 19:51:36
[Download message RAW]
> If you are trying to copy BK, give it up. We'll simply follow in the
> footsteps of every other company faced with this sort of thing and change
> the protocol every 6 months. Since you would be chasing us you can never
> catch up. If you managed to stay close then we'd put digital signatures
> into the protocol to prevent your clone from interoperating with BK.
I think it would be appropriate at this point to write a free client
that talks with Bitkeeper, and for Linux developers to start switching
to that from Bitkeeper. At that point, McVoy will face a hard choice:
if he carries out these threats, he risks alienating the community
that he hopes will market Bitkeeper for him.
-
For those who can not (will not) read, clearly the suggestion for somebody
to take up the cause to develop a "Bitkeeper" clone. Know the details of
the license it was issued to the community to use.
All know the response and the history of not threats but action by the FSF
to defend their license and works.
I am tired of this game.
Later
Andre Hedrick
The Linux X-IDE guy, second.
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003, Leandro Guimarães Faria Corsetti Dutra wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 02:46:39 -0700, Andre Hedrick wrote:
>
> > Has anyone ever asked why it is okay for RMS to suggest it is okay to
> > invalidate another person/company license (BitKeeper is the example) yet
> > become offended when their own license is to desired to be invalidated?
>
> Hmm... are you trolling?
>
> I case you are not, AFAIK RMS accepts any free software
> license but prefers, in that order, the GNU GPL, the GNU LGPL, any GNU
> GPL-compatible copyleft, any GNU GPL compatile license, any copyleft,
> any free software. I don't quite understand what do you mean by
> invalidate, but BitKeeper is not even free software, and no one is
> arguing it is.
>
> BTW, RMS never gave that list of preferred licenses' ordering,
> I am just extrapolating from his writings. Anyone who knows better,
> please tell so.
>
>
> > Why is it that nothing but gpl can exist with gpl?
>
> Not true. Anything that doesn't *add* restrictions to those
> of the GNU GPL can coexist.
>
>
> > Why is that a superior option to license under which follows the
> > original spirit of GPL but goes further to promote the ideas of open
> > source is frowned upon?
>
> Does it go further? Exactly how?
>
> BTW, I for myself frown upon the license proliferation.
> Hopefully the OSL will serve to reduce the number of different
> licenses by consolidating all the GNU-hating camp.
>
>
> --
> _ Leandro Guimarães Faria Corsetti Dutra +41 (21) 648 11 34
> / \ http://br.geocities.com./lgcdutra/ +41 (78) 778 11 34
> \ / Answer to the list, not to me directly! +55 (11) 5686 2219
> / \ Rate this if helpful: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=leandro
>
>
> -
> 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/
>
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 31 2003 - 22:00:23 EST