Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 20 Oct 2002 13:14:59 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 20 Oct 2002 13:14:59 -0400 Received: from im1.mail.tds.net ([216.170.230.91]:37251 "EHLO im1.sec.tds.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 20 Oct 2002 13:14:56 -0400 Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 13:20:55 -0400 (EDT) From: Jon Portnoy X-X-Sender: portnoy@cerberus.localhost To: Richard Stallman cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2126 Lines: 45 On Sun, 20 Oct 2002, Richard Stallman wrote: [snip] > > This is the old "We're not free unless we are `free' to deny freedom > to others" argument that some (not all) advocates of the BSD license > often make. It is a word game intended to render the concept of > freedom so confused that people can't think about it any more. Once > people see through this, it loses its effect. > Agreed. To me, freedom absolutely does _not_ mean the freedom to deny freedom. Freedom is something that _must_ be protected by any means necessary. Some people would like to think that it's possible to write code without it being "politicized." This is, most certainly, not the case. Any project as major as what the GNU project writes, what the kernel developers write, or what proprietary developers such as Microsoft write are political projects. When large companies develop proprietary software, that's making a statement: "we believe it's okay to deny our users freedom." When developers write free software, that's also making a statement: "we believe users are just as deserving of rights as authors." The issue here is using non-free software to develop free software. This, too, makes a political statement: "we don't mind if freedom is being denied as long as we're able to work efficiently." Would it be okay to use Microsoft products to develop free software as long as said products made development efficient? In my opinion, Bitkeeper is no better than Microsoft due to the 'you may not use this if your company develops competing software' issue. This is heavy-handed authoritarianism. I can understand denying those individuals who develop competing software a free seat; I most certainly don't agree with it, but I can understand it. What about people who work for large companies that may, in fact, have a product that could compete with Bitkeeper? - 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/