lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1998]   [Oct]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: bitkeeper
On Sat, 03 Oct 1998, Raul Miller wrote:

> Larry McVoy writes:
> > > The fanaticism that surrounds free software is a problem, in my
> > > opinion. It is the next big problem that faces the community. It
> > > forces people to choose between completely free or completely
> > > non-free. As with almost everything, the end point is not the right
> > > place to be, the midpoint is a better answer.
>
> I'm not sure that it's fanaticism. How is "we won't use/ distribute/
> promote this product if the license doesn't suit us" fanaticism?

Beggars can't be choosers. You're supposed to be using the software that
deals with the problem, not some half-assed GPL'd variant. The license
Larry is proposing is quite reasonable IMO. Basically what it amounts to
is a royalty fee to commercial developers using Larry's software to make
money for themselves. How can that NOT suit us? We're developing free
software, therefore we are not required to pay for a commercial license.

> Also, note that a number of companies have been making money off of
> software with free licenses. [I'm sure you've heard of Cygnus and
> Red Hat.] Which merely underlines the point that making money off
> of software doesn't necessarily require that its use is restricted --
> though it does require understanding your market.

I can tell you misunderstand the meaning of "free". In the context of
"free software" it refers to the source code being available - hence why
the term has been recently renamed "open source" to avoid confusion by the
people who think it means "no cost". Money has nothing to do with it
whatsoever. Last time I read the GPL, it was perfectly legal to sell
software licensed under it for fun and profit with the provisos of the GPL
such as you provide the full source code with it, it's allowed to be
modified, etc.

> It's your choice, obviously, what license you put on software you
> write, just as it's Linus's choice what tools he uses to work on
> the kernel.

You're implying that Linus conforms to your perverted view of the software
community and won't use a better tool simply because it isn't GPL ...

> [Further aside: I'm not sure that the stated goals of your project --
> making the patching process faster -- have anything to do with the
> current problem. The current problem is that coordinating patches that
> may conflict with other patches is a tough problem, and requires
> someone understand the conflicts.]

.. and here insult him by saying that Linus is incapable of understanding
let alone resolving patch conflicts.

I think you can now safely crawl back under your rock and stop your weak
attempt at barricading the continued success of the Linux operating
system.

--
Matt

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:44    [W:0.059 / U:0.080 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site