OSNews

In theory, distributors could revert to a free system if the proprietary arrangement becomes untenable. But in practice, package repositories quickly rust over once they become unmaintained, and getting them back up to date (i.e. no packaging regressions relative to the proprietary system) is a huge challenge.

For example, when BitKeeper became unusable for the Linux kernel project, a considerable amount of work had to be done to get everyone's bk trees converted to git trees. With a package repository migration it would be significantly worse, not only because of the sheer size of a package repository (which dwarfs the number of upstream kernel branches), but because of the package compatibility and dependency issues that aren't applicable to the kernel.

You're absolutely right that it would be the victim distributor's own fault for adopting CNR, not Linspire's. But that doesn't make this strategic initiative any more tolerable. Free software projects are not a viable market for proprietary development or project management tools. The spirit of free software mandates that the tools needed to participate are likewise free. There would be no free software if GCC was proprietary.

Nothing so central to the operation of the free software community as the very means of software distribution can be left vulnerable to the realities of the business world. Proprietary software can be bought and sold right out from under us. Introducing Microsoft Click-n-Run, for example. Not convinced? Just how far from bankruptcy and asset liquidation could Linspire be? I doubt they've had a single profitable quarter (note they are a private corporation so no one outside the company knows for sure).