The Linux kernel mailing list continues to be the locus of sometimes contentious discussion between Richard M. Stallman and advocates of the limited-license BitKeeper code management program that is currently used to store the pieces of the Linux kernel as it is developed. It actually reached the point Monday where there was a discussion as to whether Stallman should be banned from the kernel list.
RMS and BitKeeper — the Debate Turns Ugly
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
The whole bitkeeper thing is an internal matter among kernel developers. No free software solution meets Linus’s needs for a source management system, so he uses the best available, BitKeeper. Since this isn’t an official part of kernel development (you’re entirely free to send him plain old diffs) I don’t really see where RMS gets off criticizing Linus for using whatever software he thinks is best. I personally wouldn’t like to see BitKeeper becomeing widespread (like CVS is) in Open Source projects, because I personally wouldn’t want to have to use non-free software. But if it float’s Linus’s boat, and he leaves others the option to use what THEY want to use, I don’t see the harm in it.
don’t forget it’s GNU/Linux… Show me what would be linux without gcc and all the gnu stuff, bash, yacc and the likes… I understand Linus, but he’s plain wrong. Free software is all about politics, and when you’re refusing politics you’re just working against free software (just like people that say “I don’t do politics” are always on the right, strange isn’t it?).
I agree that it may not belong to linux.kernel, but how would you call up all the kernel guys if not there? That was the only place to do that, BTW I’m happy to see that many guys are unhappy with bitkeeper… not technically, of course.
The thing is…Linux is Linus’s personal project and it is not even sponsored by GNU…so the kernel itself is not GNU/Linux…in fact, RPM is trying to replace Linux…he’d love to not even have Linux on the landscape…he has consistantly made his blind hatred for linux quite obvious…and this is just his stick to use to try and get a little bit more control for linux
To be quite honest, because the GNU toolchain is basically a set of copies of BSD and Sys V tools, it’s quite easy to completely to build an open source UNIX distro with almost no GNU tools…in fact the BSDs have done this for a long time
RMS should start fighting the IMPORTANT fight and ignore all of this stupid Free versus Open Source bull crap he constantly pulls…support Linux and stop pissing and moaning about Linus’s decisions, since he is supposedly about freedom. Freedom to me is about choice, something that Stallman seems to often forget
enough of my rant
-bytes256
I agree the Open Source is a good thing for all the reasons that we’re familiar with. However, I don’t believe that people who distribute non-free software have done an evil thing, as RMS believes. He seems to think that if you can’t access the source, you as a user are being mistreated. I don’t buy that.
I can cook, after a fashion. I can follow a recipe and get something approximating what I’m supposed to. However, I like going to a nice restaurant once in a while and paying someone else to cook. Am I being mistreated if I don’t get to walk in and request a free copy of the recipe to cook myself at home? I don’t believe so.
Many restaurants usually have dishes specific to their menus that their staff have painstakingly devised — “hacking” the recipe, if you will. That recipe is intellectual property that they then sell to the public. That isn’t evil and it isn’t mistreating anyone.
I honestly don’t see the difference between buying a meal at a restaurant and paying someone for their work devising software.
Of course meals don’t come with click-through licenses, and I do agree that licenses can be abusive, but that doesn’t mean that all proprietary licenses are abusive and therefore evil.
“””The whole bitkeeper thing is an internal matter among kernel developers. No free software solution meets Linus’s needs for a source management system, so he uses the best available, “””
There’s a couple of reasons I think he’s doing this:
1) it’s not free software (and has a quasi-Draconian EULA), as well as, using it as a “good enough” substitute means that people are less inclined to work on a replacement.
2) he’s like that in everything he does; in fact, he won’t let himself be recorded giving speeches if it will only be available in a non-free format. Also, the O’Reilly bio of him stalled for sometime before it was agreed it would be available in a free format via the web as well…
“””in fact, [RMS] is trying to replace Linux…he has consistently made his blind hatred for linux quite obvious…and this is just his stick to use to try and get a little bit more control for linux”””
What blind hatred is that?
Why would he want to control the kernel development?
He has very little interest in such, as far as, I can tell and spends all his time doing advocacy. He’s just espousing his ideals.
I can see him being upset about the Linux vs. GNU/Linux thing as well; he and the FSF spent ~10 years putting together an operating system that would be Free, and little attention is payed to the ideals that espoused by it.
“””RMS should start fighting the IMPORTANT fight and ignore all of this stupid Free versus Open Source bull crap he constantly pulls…”””
Why? It’s important to him; he’s an idealist not a pragmatist. The _motivations_ behind actions are important to him; I can empathize about the confusion between Open Source and Free Software, they have similiar goals and methods but different ideology.
What is the important fight? To him it’s the fight against the tyranny he perceives in proprietary software; is there another he’s missing the boat on?
“””Freedom to me is about choice, something that Stallman seems to often forget “””
Freedom to him is much simpler and his definition can be found here:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
Linux is Linus’s project. He can do whatever the hell he wants with it.
If you don’t like it, how about making the HURD usable.
Oh wait, you’d rather waste everyone’s time complaining.
Honestly, before you jump on the GNU/Linux zealot-train ask yourself these three simple questions:
What OS was the latest version of GCC majorily written on? Was it Linux? If so, then there wouldn’t be a GCC 3.x without Linux.
Would the GNU tools have as much widespread recognition in the world today if Linux weren’t around?
Seriously, which has done the other more good? It’s, imho, pretty hard to decide at this point. So, wouldn’t it be just as reasonable to say that all GNU tools should be called Linux/GNU? It’s ridiculous, yes, but no more so than GNU/Linux.
If those two questions don’t cause you to pause a bit then try this one: Where in the GPL does it say that any work created with other GPL software has to adopt the naming prefix of those tools?
If RMS is all about freedom then he should recognize the fact that people can call their creations whatever the heck they want. He’s trying to enforce an arbitrary rule on Linux that goes against his stated ideals and isn’t specified in his license agreement.
Face it, GNU was nothing but a stalled attempt to make an OpenSource OS before Linus came along. Now that Linux and the BSDs have achieved everything that RMS set out to do he’s doing nothing by trying to ride the wave of the work of others.
So, RMS doesn’t like Linux? Fine, he should finish GNU/HURD then and show us what his ideal GNU system is all about.
very well said indeed
Every movement needs its wild-eyed radical to define the fringe, so the majority of us laboring in the movement can appear to be moderate and actually make some headway in the world. Stallman is the Open Source movement’s delimiter of the extreme, and we need him. His job is to throw the occasional spaz and make everybody agitated. It’s okay for him to do it, and it’s okay for everybody to get agitated by it.
Martin Luther King was able to get more work done because Malcom X was defining the extreme. The World Wildlife Fund and The Nature Conservancy have more credibility because Greenpeace and Earth First! are out there showing everyone what a real extreme environmentalist looks like. Rush Limbaugh draws the ire of the common Liberal so run-of-the-mill conservative politicians can get their point across without sounding callous.
Let’s give RMS some silent appreciation for all the work he does. (Let’s make sure it’s silent appreciation, or you’ll undermine his mission.)
Why must certain segments of the Linux community always obsess about irrelevant crap like that? I don’t remember anyone on the OpenTracker dev list bitch that they were using the (*gasp*) commercial versioning system Perforce instead of CVS.
Perhaps Stallman should put his money where the Linux community’s mouth so often is – if he doesn’t like Bitkeeper, then he should write a better alternative.
RMS’ whining is really annoying. Maybe if he is banned we hill go off and finish the gnu baby Hurd
The whole…oh no.look proprietory = evil argument that he keeps using is quite annoying. Didn’t one of the glibc release (2.2.3 or something) rant about Stallman’s arrogance?
I personally preffer the Linus approach, code first..politics..well those can fsck themselves. Whereas Stallman is always “GNU! GNU! proprietory sucks cos its not GNU”.
For example yesterday he posted a story on newsforge which can be summarized “Proprietory software is more evil than usual”
“””What OS was the latest version of GCC majorily written on? Was it Linux?”””
Indeed. However, it’s cross platform, you could develop it on Solaris or Windows or whatever system you use.
“””Would the GNU tools have as much widespread recognition in the world today if Linux weren’t around? “””
As much? No. It would however still be recognized (especially in academic circles).
“””this point. So, wouldn’t it be just as reasonable to say that all GNU tools should be called Linux/GNU?”””
RMS’ point is that it’s a port of the GNU operating system onto the Linux kernel, just as GNU on L4 is called GNU/L4 (or Debian’s ports are GNU/FreeBSD and GNU/NetBSD). His whole reasoning is to cause people to ask “Well, what’s the GNU part of GNU/Linux mean?”. Then (hopefully) they might read about the free software philosophy or ask someone about it, and maybe (God Forbid) they might even think about it. If you hear him speak you’ll notice often he uses “GNU plus Linux” to emphasize it’s communitive and symbiotic relationship.
“””the GPL does it say that any work created with other GPL software has to adopt the naming prefix of those tools? “””
He’s asking, not demanding. He’s also explicitly said in the past he has no interest in taking any other means to achieve that goal than simply asking. It’s just another philosophical/ethical issue for him.
“””Face it, GNU was nothing but a stalled attempt to make an Open-Source OS before Linus came along. Now that Linux and the BSDs have achieved everything that RMS set out to do he’s doing nothing by trying to ride the wave of the work of others. “””
This is exactly the think he’s trying to discourage, since it’s really not true. 386BSD was wrapped up in the whole lawsuit thing for a while and the *BSD’s still use chunks of GNU code anyway. GNU sunk a good 10 years into writing the GNU system (sans kernel) and they succeeded.
“””So, RMS doesn’t like Linux? Fine, he should finish GNU/HURD then and show us
what his ideal GNU system is all about.”””
Whomever said he didn’t like it or use it?
GNU/HURD is still being developed and is approaching usability (albiet slowly). X runs on it, there are a couple implementations of POSIX threads for it [some faster than others]. There’s even an attempt to port it to L4 since Mach has proved to be a bigger sink of time than it’s worth [that project is stalled due to some legal issues with L4 last time I checked up on it]. And so on.
This is exactly the think he’s trying to discourage, since it’s really not true. 386BSD was wrapped up in the whole lawsuit thing for a while and the *BSD’s still use chunks of GNU code anyway. GNU sunk a good 10 years into writing the GNU system (sans kernel) and they succeeded.
the “chunks of GNU code” used by the BSDs is pretty much just GCC and it’s support programs and as far as I know, the BSD kernels are written in ANSI C or very close to it, so they could use another compiler for the core…the problem is all of the programs in the ports collection that rely on all of the GNU cruft in GCC
To the poster who said that RMS was whining about irrelevent crap.
1) It’s not whining. He’s voicing his opinions about something he thinks is a threat to free software. Since he established the most important free software project of all time, GNU, I’d give him some credit. Hell, almost everyone at this forum owe’s him one. To anyone using OS X, Linux, or *BSD, you owe him for your compiler. To anyone using Linux or BeOS, you owe him for your C library and POSIX userspace. If you’ve ever typed in ./configure && make && make install, you owe him (the GNU projet, anyway) for Autoconf and Automake.
2) It’s not irrelevent. The most popular GPL kernel in the world is using a non-GPL source control tool. Even if you don’t think there is any danger in that (I personally don’t think there is) you still have to respect the fact that he doesn’t agree with you, and could very well have a valid point. So feel free to disagree, but don’t even think about being disrespectful about it.
I know a lot of people think RMS is paranoid, and he probably is. But the world needs paranoid people. Specifically to those who think this is irrelevent: It’s people like HIM that keep sheep like YOU free!
I wish RMS would go back to writing crufty gimped cheezy copies of software and stop whining
yes, he contributed some very useful software, but that in itself is not enough for me to ignore his incessant whining, software should be about writing great software, not whining because very few people hold your political ideals, i don’t use open source as a religion i use it when it’s the best tool for the job…guess what, i use windows sometimes, and office, and commercial games…gasp…i’ve already made my pact with the devil…
guess what, capitalism runs the world…RMS deal with it…you will never kill proprietary software
-bytes256
I bet Stallman would love it if he were banned. Ever see Ibsen’s play “Enemy of the People?” The climax features an entire town parading down the street chanting “Enemy! Enemy of the People” in reference to the cranky, rumpled doctor who’s trying to save them from poisoned water wells.
I think they’d best just put up with his rants… he earned the right to make them.
im not a big fan of rms, actually i think he is a touch too arrogant most of the time (he wont talk to linux user groups unless they change their name to blahblah gnulinux users group), but i have to say i agree with him as far as bitkeeper and the linux kernel is concerned.
im not opposed to proprietary software, not particularly a proponent of open source nor free software. i think that a mix is needed honestly. im not opposed to BK, actually i think its a pretty nice product on paper (havent used it, cant comment from that point of view).
what i am opposed to is the current licensing text and its usage by linux kernel devs
personally i think that a free and clear version should come out that has a clause stating that it is 100% free for use by ANYONE as long as that usage is on development for the linux kernel. no questions, no exceptions, and no clauses that says the license for that particular version you pulled can be changed at any time without consent. if this is going to be the “official” linux kernel version tracking software, then the kernel devs MUST have unrestricted access to use it on the kernel. i think it is wrong of linus to more or less impose what versioning software should be used, without first buying or arranging a license for each main kernel developer (you can say diffs are fine, but truthfully, its more or less an imposed standard for those wanting to do any real work)
i agree that mcvoy is using the linux kernel as a advertising tool. thats been my opinion the entire time. more power to him if he is, but he should make his support either 100% or no support at all, none of these half-assed attempts he is currently doing. more power to him on wanting to support himself on his work with BK.
anyway, to continue
mcvoy needs to either commit to either helping 100% or someone needs to buy and donate normal licenses to the major kernel devs. otherwise i wish linus and the linux kernel would stay away from BK (or push for something from the community, hell someone do a good BSD licensed versioning system)
What it all boils down to is choice. There are a number of things I agree with RMS on but the absolute intolerance for commercial software is not one of them. RMS argues that because a program, once written, has a low to non-existant cost to distribute it should be free. I can and will not ever agree with this. Yes software once written is not expensive to redistribute, but that does not mean that it is not the creators right to ask money for it. Nor does it mean that it cost nothing to produce. What is done with a program and how much it costs is the creator’s choice. RMS in essence says all or nothing, it should be open source and free else it should not be used. I say it is the creators right to choose what he does with his creation just as it is the consumers right to choose whether or not to accept the creators conditions of use. I do have probelms with changing EULAs but as long as the older version can be used uner the original EULA so be it.
In a perfect world I think all software should be open source, but not necessarily free (as in beer). The unfortunate truth, however, is if all software were open source then recent history shows that the internet populace as a whole will not respect the creators conditions as to how it is used/distributed. IOW given the option the vast majority of people would not pay for software if the could as easily get it for free, regardless of whether it was legal or according to the creators conditions of use.
RMS has given a great amount to the computing community as a whole, but that does not give him the right to force others to follow his ideals. His approach of unreasoning fanaticism MIGHT be useful to the community as whole, but is it reasoable to force it on others?
That’s all I have to say on that.
RMS should start fighting the IMPORTANT fight and ignore all of this stupid Free versus Open Source bull crap he constantly pulls…support Linux
Being OpenSource is the only thing going for Linux. We’re all hanging on waiting for Linux to grow up either on the desktop or on the server side, and we are promised this will happen because Linux is OpenSource.
(As for RMS, I have to say that the world needs more like him, who puts his own interests below the common good. And that’s a damn unpopular job – you always do it when the majority is already brainwashed enough.)
i just don’t see how politics and infighting are the right thing for Linux…doesn’t make a whole lotta sense to me…RMS can definitely write code…why doesn’t he do that…put his money where his mouth is instead of bitching from the sidelines…he hasn’t contributed anything significant in years code wise
if he hates the way linux is going…he’s got a couple of options…fork linux (and be a real asshole)…or shut up and do have his way with HURD…but his bitching from the sidelines probably won’t acheive much more than piss a lot of people off…Linus can be almost as stubborn as RMS
-bytes256
Regarding this:
“i just don’t see how politics and infighting are the right thing for Linux”
They’re not. Under most conditions, though, it’s probably better to fight for what you believe in than stand on the sidelines hoping other people will magically do what you want.
Consider: in this world, we each have a fixed amount of time to spend on things. RMS and Linus write software. At the end of the day, Linus may not care about the political side of things, but RMS does — so he’s going to argue where Linus will shrug and say “whatever, dude”. Frankly, each person is doing their community a lot of good, but when the totals are added up I suspect RMS will have done a lot more (good AND bad) because he cares more.
I tried, and I can’t see anything wrong with this. I do it myself, where I work — I spend hours a day writing software according to standards and beliefs that I support, and an hour or so discussing those standards and beliefs with others who agree or disagree. That sometimes these discussions turn into arguments is merely a reflection of how much we care about the things we’re discussing.
So RMS, and everyone else, keep fighting. “politics and infighting” may not be the right thing for quick and efficient software development, but the harder you fight, the more you probably care (unless you’re a sociopath, of course, which I don’t believe RMS is) — and it is that kind of energy and enthusiasm that makes ANY project/political movement/anything worthwhile, inefficiencies be damned.
My 2c.
“””if he hates the way linux is going…he’s got a couple of options…fork linux (and be a real asshole)…or shut up and do have his way with HURD…”””
Eh? This really has nothing to do with the way the Linux kernel is going; what it _is_ about is the horribly EULA that BitKeeper offered under which could inhibit people from giving patches/allows the company that makes BK make any changes to the license they want. To paraphrase: it stipulates you can’t work on competing software; but what constitues competing software? CVS? Subersion? what about ResierFS plugins that possibly could be used for source or configuration management? Can you submit a non-BK formated patch to it if you work on CVS?
That’s what he is concerned about and what he posted about.
Here’s the message that caused the uproar:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=103454948625224&w=2
As Larry McVoy said: If RMS is all about freedom then he should reject the GPL and instead embrace the BSD licence, which gives you the freedom to do whatever the hell you want. Haw! Good point. Really, RMS should just shut up…
forget the whole debate and stick to the pragmatic point of view … that the author of the software gets to choose what he wants to use.
If you’ve ever typed in ./configure && make && make install, you owe him (the GNU projet, anyway) for Autoconf and Automake.
I knoew there was a good reason to hate him.
Autoconf is horrible.
(FTR: I don’t hate him, and regarding BK I agree with him, although I think that mailing list is probably not the place for political agression)
Couldn’t someone with money do a lot of damage if they bought BitKeeper? Linux do have it’s competitors…
Remember it is GNU/Linux. NOT GNU. Linus controls his own project, Linux. RMS has no right in it. If he doesn’t like it – fork it and make Ginux for all we care. The reason why it is called GNU/Linux is because Linux is not part of the GNU project.
Linux, unlike other GNU software, isn’t here to help a holy war against propreitary software. It began for Linus to learn about Unix by cloning Minix. It later on became a hobby, and now he is paid by Transmeta to work on it.
If RMS doesn’t like the situation, he should just butt off, make a fork of Linux or help write a altenative to BitKipper that is *better* (the only condition Linus gives to move away from BitKipper).
So just because GNU uses the Linux kernel doesn’t mean Linux have to follow GNU’s policies. If HURD started to use BitKipper, RMS have the right to oppose it, and perhaps kick it out of GNU. But this ISN’T a GNU software. Repeat after me: Linux is NOT part of GNU. Linux is NOT part of GNU (and thankfully, it isn’t)
“To be quite honest, because the GNU toolchain is basically a set of copies of BSD and Sys V tools, it’s quite easy to completely to build an open source UNIX distro with almost no GNU tools…in fact the BSDs have done this for a long time”
The GNU toolchain, I believe, more or less copies the interface and organization of original BSD and SysV tools (for obvious reasons), but they are not “copies” of those tools.
And while pretty much any open source UNIX distro could be compiled with a non-GNU toolchain, in fact the BSDs are not really doing this. At least {Free,Net,Open}BSD all use GNU toolchain. Some BSD tools (make), yes, but GCC+binutils are at the heart of it all. Except NetBSD does not always, when GCC does not have support for the platform in question. But my understanding is that NetBSD, too, switches platforms to GNU toolchain once support becomes available.
I can’t stand how RMS continously tells other people how to live their life. Reminds me of Torquemada to be honest. They should stop calling it free software and start calling it RMS software…
If bitkeep can be used by those who can’t pay, great, and if those who can pay can pay the bill for a bunch of developers, great. That is how they can make software, have a life and a family. I don’t see how I ever could live and only produce free software, and also support my family (just my fiancé at the moment though). Flip burgers and code during night?
Projects like Linux and KDE (among others) needs money, in one way or another. Imagine if all the core people of KDE could be hosted in just a few locations and work fulltime on it? Imagine if they could hire even more really good people to develop it even further? KDE would get even better at a much more rapid pace. Does this mean that you have to hide the source away? No. It just means that you need to get the money somewhere.
I could rant on more, but I won’t.
Oh! A Linux&Main story. Isn’t the author (dep) of this story the same person who portayed KDE as a neo-nazi organization in one of his editorials?
Thank you RMS for voicing our opinions. I only use linux because it’s free in the phylosophicl sense of the word. Other wise why bother? Use WinXP or MacOSX instead.
C.
The article isn’t writen by dep. Besides, speaking about dep, here’s what Mosfet says about him (the first thing I agree with him for months): “Another little interesting point about our friend, DEP. Looks like Open For Business did a little research and all IRS data confirms what Andreas Pour has been saying all along and refutes Dep’s allegations about the KDE League. Of course, if Dep bothered to do a little research he would of known he was reporting incorrect news about the KDE League, (that it was dissolved, that it mishandled reports, etc…), but he got a little excited thinking he had something to bash KDE with again. DEP has also been caught lying. Read the above URL and you’ll see that DEP reported the Delaware Secretary of State made statements about the KDE League that she never said. She said she never said what DEP quoted her as saying, nobody else would of in her office, and that they were factually incorrect.”
Doh. (Heck, even before he turned against KDE, I never liked this guy)
If rms is consistently-off-topic and rms is not a kernel contributor, ban his ass. Like you would anyone else who’s spamming the list with off-topic messages.
– chrish
Freedom is not off topic for free software. RMS’s occasional post on the subject is not spam. Making it impossible to use exclusively free software closes off kernel development from the very people who made it possible. Without freedom, Linux is nothing special.
Freedom is not off topic for free software.
Politics is off-topic for most development lists.
RMS’s occasional post on the subject is not spam.
Occasional, probably not, but that doesn’t make it on-topic, either.
Making it impossible to use exclusively free software closes off kernel development from the very people who made it possible.
It’s perfectly possible to do kernel development without BitKeeper. Linus doesn’t exclude contributions that don’t use it, though he may not use a patch that won’t work with it.
Without freedom, Linux is nothing special.
The GPL and FSF do not define the success of Linux. Getting Linux GPL’d is part of the success of RMS’ efforts, though (as it wasn’t GPL’d at the start). Using the GPL doesn’t mean you have to use only GPL’d software and/or software under licenses that the FSF determines are compatible with it. That sort of requirement would’ve prevented GNU from getting as far as it has in the first place, and to make that a requirement now would be a mistake.
Where is the freedom to use the right tool for the job? The freedom of the developer to make his/her own choice? RMS’ definition of freedom isn’t freedom to everyone.
You can say that Richard Stallman is some crazy wide-eyed
nut, and that he is blinded by his own agenda. That might be
true. You can not say that he is not consistant when speaking
about Free software. I, personally, like Richard Stallman for
this reason. I always know where the guy stands on an issue,
which is important (at least to me) to the head of a non-profit
foundation. When I give money, I know exactly what sort of
projects my money is funding.
When Linux chose Bitkeeper over a free alternative, he already
knew that RMS would say something. He decided to say ‘fuck it’
and risk that he would not only piss off the Free Software Foundation
but a whole bunch of developers who work on the kernel and
believe politically in the Free software movement.
The Linux kernel is no longer just Linus’ pet project. The day
that is accepted code from an outside developer Linus lost the
ability to claim so. Once you make modifications to GPL software,
that software (at least that part of the software) becomes your
software also. You own the copyright to that part of the software –
if the main developer wants to change the license then the developer
has to ask you – the contributor – permission to use your code with
the new license.
Personally, I think that Linus should have chosen another versioning
system for kernel development. The Linux kernel is a shining example
of the free software development process and it would be nice to
have it – from bottom up – be untainted with non-free software. It
is a shame that they made such a decision.
Then again, I am not a kernel developer, and they can do what they
want. I know that you are allowed to use your own versioning system
of choice as long as you have a way of pushing the source into
Bitkeeper.
Hopefully it is.
If people are as interested in the Free in Free Software as RMS, they would start looking at “more” free alternatives to Linux (the kernel).
And by “more” free, I do know Linux is GPL, but I mean philosophically, the whole picture, including the tools used for development.
The HURD comes to mind. It’s not as functional currently, but time and helping hands should change all that.
For those who do not seem to understand the importance of Linux’s use of the GPL, consider this: BSD. Notice how it’s not quite as popular as Linux? Notice how Microsoft has managed to build many crucial applications and OS features based on its source? Notice how Microsoft hates the GPL (and hence Linux), but is happy as a bug in a rug using BSD to create many applications and, in fact, improve Windows, which is entirely within the license’s specification?
From where I’m sitting, the GPL is the most important part of Linux’s success. Without it, Microsoft would be free to use all aspects of the Linux kernel for its own systems, just like they’ve used BSD for that purpose. BSD is a great OS (OS, not just kernel), but its licensing is so open, companies can use its code in proprietary code, without giving credit or releasing any source. The GPL works in the interest of creating and perpetuating an open source society. The BSD license doesn’t care if you never release source code your whole life.
I firmly believe if Linux switched to a less restrictive license than the GPL, like the BSD license, Microsoft would sink it in a heartbeat by embracing and extending it right out of existence, or using the innovations to improve Windows by leaps and bounds, possibly making it a better product than Linux.
Ummm… Isn’t “open” supposed to mean “free”? So if this is true… Then by your own words BSD is more “free” than the GPL.
Also… I don’t think Microsoft would “embrace and extend it right out of existance”. Remember we aren’t talking about a company here. Linux, NetBSD, OpenBSD, etc… Aren’t required to make a profit. Therefore Microsoft cannot use the same tactic to sink them. The only way they can sink them is to 1) Convince the government to outlaw them, 2) Eliminate all interest in them, etc… Standard business tactics will not eliminate either BSD or GPL based software.
The difference between GPL and BSD is true freedom.
I believe that people should be allowed to use whichever tool/program/license they feel best suits what they are trying to do. This is called freedom of choice.
RMS is free to believe what he wishes as long as he does not attempt to force others. (However, I honestly believe that he doesn’t believe in the 2nd part. That would be “as long as he does not attempt to force others.”)
t: Freedom is not off topic for free software.
Freedom= politics. Politics= off topic. Kernel devel lists != politics/free software mailing list. The mailing list is to discuss technical issues with Linux. Not philosophical issues.
t: Without freedom, Linux is nothing special.
Amazing – Linux’s success has nothing to do with free software. It has to do in the beginning with BSD’s legal problems, and now its fame, features and price. Linux would be just as successful – heck, maybe more, if Linus would have just forked on BSD’s tools instead of using GNU’s tools. At least nobody would be mailing distributions to rename to “BSD/Linux”.
Chris Parker: He decided to say ‘fuck it’ and risk that he would not only piss off the Free Software Foundation but a whole bunch of developers who work on the kernel and believe politically in the Free software movement.
Only a minoriity of developers working on the part of the kernel under BitKeeper was pissed off by the decission. Most applauded the decission. Note, the kernel as a whole doesn’t use BitKeeper exclusively. Many parts uses other versioning systems.
Besides. when he said “fuck it”, he said it because he doesn’t care what others think. He cares what makes him productive.
Chris Parker: The Linux kernel is no longer just Linus’ pet project. The day that is accepted code from an outside developer Linus lost the ability to claim so.
If I create a nice piece of software that automatically emails Rayiner every week saying “You’re a troll, mwuahahahaha” (no offenece, Rayiner), and someone contributes to it that also allows the email to be sent to Eugenia – it is still MY pet project. The day it stops being my pet project is the day where I do not control it anymore.
Besides, Linus is the one in charge of his own project (or part of his project). He manages it. If he feels that BitKeeper can help him do that – all the better. Many people can STILL email him patches.
Chris Parker: You own the copyright to that part of the software – if the main developer wants to change the license then the developer has to ask you – the contributor – permission to use your code with the new license.
This has nothing to do with the kernel’s license – which is still under the GPL. It is about BitKeeper, which was never under the GPL nor has any patches with outside copyrights under the GPL.
Chris Parker: Personally, I think that Linus should have chosen another versioning system for kernel development.
Personally, I think Linus should use whatever that makes him happy. If he likes BitKeeper? Let him use it. If he likes a strip down CVS? Let him do whatever he likes.
martin: For those who do not seem to understand the importance of Linux’s use of the GPL, consider this: BSD. Notice how it’s not quite as popular as Linux?
Linux came at the right time: when BSD had legal problems. That’s why it is popular Not because of the license. People would still use it, still contribute to it, etc.
What would change is Microsoft can’t take Linus’ code (which really begs the question: Why would they need that?)
martin: I firmly believe if Linux switched to a less restrictive license than the GPL, like the BSD license, Microsoft would sink it in a heartbeat by embracing and extending it right out of existence
What would change is that you might find Linux code inside Windows. I don’t see how they can “embrace and extend” Linux. It would be an independant project – Microsoft has no say in which direction it is going. They may be able to fork the code – big deal. I don’t see any harm to Linux because all they would miss is a bunch of Free Software hippies.
Microsoft can’t change the direction Linux is going. The same way it can’t erase BSD from existance. Maybe they could make a closed source distribution – but why would they? Makes no business sense.