I make no moral claims as to whether or not you are a good person.
Frankly, the question is immaterial. No. That's not what I said.
I reserve terms for evil for people like hitler and puppy killers.
No. I think you're a guy trying to make money. Nothing wrong that.
That's how the great majority (if not all) of the world works.
The point I was making was that you and Richard Stallman do not have the
same goal in mind. His goal is to alleviate what he percieves as an ill
in society. Your goal is to run a business. You have stated so yourself.
> I'm sorry you feel that way. I don't agree at all with what you are
> saying. If what you are saying was true we would have shut down the
> free version of the product long ago. That fact that we don't now,
> given attacks such as yours, is perhaps the strongest indicator of our
> commitment to Linux.
I'm glad that you don't agree that I think you're evil since I don't
think that way at all.
My arguments are that you and your software are causing more damage to
free software development than they are worth and that you and Richard
do not have the same goals.
> I did a little digging to figure out who you are and I'm a bit confused.
Ok. I started back in early 1996 and since then I've spent somewhere
around 12,000 hours helping people use linux and other free software
(such as RMS's gnu system). I spend a large amount of my time assisting
people using Linux productively via #Linux on dalnet, which I preside
over. I've submitted a moderate number of small patches to various
projects such as the kernel, freeciv, sac, linuxtrade, gnunet etc,
which are usually turned down for one good reason or another. I run a
small website that focuses on free software news. Recently, I paid a
undisclosed amount of money for the rights to have Linuxtrade relicensed
under a free software license. I'm a firm supporter of the precepts of
free software because I believe that as software becomes more pervasive
in society, the rights for the individual to patch a program should
exist just as the right exists to repair a car rather than return it to
the dealer.
> My Linux involvement predates yours by only a few years, we've both
> been here for a long time. Unless you are saying that 10 years ago
> I hatched this evil plot to hijack the Linux kernel, your statements
Of course I'm not accusing you of some conspiracy. You have been quite
clear and up front on what you do, what you offer and how you profit.
Though I'm sure you remember what you've said, I'll summarize for those
that somehow managed to slip into this thread out of context. You write a
proprietary source code revision system by the name of bitkeeper. You
offered free licences to linux kernel developers among others. Your
motivation is that you can use linux kernel development as a showcase
example when you hunt down people that are willing to pay you. This
isn't something that I have any issue with.
To make the issues I bring up more clear, I'll list them here:
1. You are anticompetitive wrt source code revision systems.
You are attempting to leverage the free licenses you give kernel developers
to slow down/halt the development of free software code revision systems
such as subversion. Though process may or may not be beneficial to the
linux kernel (I leave this argument for others with more experience),
one thing is clear: This process is clearly not beneficial to free
software that potentially competes with yours. I don't make any claim as
to whether or not you are doing the right thing. I only make the claim
that there is damage to free software occuring.
Even more clearly: you are trying to impede development of free software
such as subversion and that affects me in a negative way. The slower
that projects such as subversion and an sccs for reiserfs develop, the
longer I'm stuck with cvs.
2. Your goals are not those of Richard Stallman's.
The goal of the FSF (established 1985 or so by Richard Stallman and run
by the same to this day) are very clear and can be read at
http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/philosophy.html. When you get right
down to it, the goals of the FSF are to give people the
freedom to escape people who say things such as "If you develop
subversion, then you can't use bitkeeper to work on the kernel". Instead
of dealing with this issue head on, you try and convince others "to keep
their eye on the ball" and to go chase microsoft?
3. Your software is responsible for a growing rift between developers
If you wish, I can go through all 500 or 600 emails and try and list
which people seem to be on which side of the issue, but I'd rather
assume that you and others can see for themselves. The only question
regarding this issue is whether this rift were to grow deep enough to
cause a fork. Hypothetically speaking here... wouldn't you agree it
would be a shame if we ended up with a Linux-A lead by Linus Torvalds
and a Linux-B lead by Alan Cox (Alan works at Redhat, which I understand
supports amongst other things, subversion)?
> simply are not supported by history. Which anyone can check out, thanks
> to Google groups.
My thoughts and position on many things have changed over the years and
I have no doubts that you could probably manage to drag up something
embarassing about me. Surely we are both adult enough that we wouldn't
stoop to something so low as an ad hominem attack, so I don't think its
an issue.
-- GnuPG fingerprint AAE4 8C76 58DA 5902 761D 247A 8A55 DA73 0635 7400 James Blackwell -- Director http://www.linuxguru.net - 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/