Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 15:24:42 -0400
From: Mark Mielke <mark@mark.mielke.cc>
To: jbradford@dial.pipex.com
Cc: xaxxon@chopper.slackworks.com, nwourms@netscape.net,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new
Message-ID: <20021022192442.GA1814@mark.mielke.cc>
References: <20021020084056.GD5064@mark.mielke.cc> <200210211246.g9LCk47l002728@darkstar.example.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200210211246.g9LCk47l002728@darkstar.example.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2492
Lines: 55

On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 01:46:04PM +0100, jbradford@dial.pipex.com wrote:
> It was initially developed as a C front end to VUCK, but was later
> re-written, using none of the VUCK code, but initially keeping parts
> of the C front end.  The GNU project was originally developed without
> using any proprietary software.

> So, non-GPL software was used, but the software that was used was, at
> least to begin with, all non-proprietary.

Even if this was true (I have no reason to doubt it)...

Is the idea that "Free Software Providers" must use "Free Software" to
produce a reasonable decree from the king of "Free Software"?

Is it reasonable that if I happen to have some super fancy memory allocation
routines that automatically locate and resolve all memory leaks in my
program, I *cannot use it when producing GPL code* as the software was
purchased?

This becomes hypocrisy. RMS hates Bit Keeper because it requires people in
competing fields to purchase a license, but RMS feels that people are doing
acts of "evil" by using software that isn't "Free" (RMS TM).

Basically... RMS gets to choose your software for you...

Which is completely besides the *real* point. CVS is crap for larger
products, and Sub-Version (and other competitors) are only in their
initial stages of life. If something better than Bit Keeper existed for
free, doesn't RMS have enough faith in the people who develop Linux to
*TRUST* that they would be using it already?

RMS is setting standards based on his own personal agenda that allows
him to be king of "Free" software. I don't want a king. I want the
freedom to produce free software in the way that *I* find most
convenient, completely free of political crap. If I wanted to be a
policitian, I wouldn't have learned C.

mark

-- 
mark@mielke.cc/markm@ncf.ca/markm@nortelnetworks.com __________________________
.  .  _  ._  . .   .__    .  . ._. .__ .   . . .__  | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/    |_     |\/|  |  |_  |   |/  |_   | 
|  | | | | \ | \   |__ .  |  | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__  | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

  One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
                       and in the darkness bind them...

                           http://mark.mielke.cc/

-
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/