Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+willy=40w.ods.org@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id <S265865AbTATOPS>; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 09:15:18 -0500
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S265872AbTATOPS>; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 09:15:18 -0500
Received: from smtpzilla2.xs4all.nl ([194.109.127.138]:61198 "EHLO
	smtpzilla2.xs4all.nl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id <S265865AbTATOPP>; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 09:15:15 -0500
Message-ID: <3E2C0531.FD7E54BB@linux-m68k.org>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 15:18:25 +0100
From: Roman Zippel <zippel@linux-m68k.org>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.20 i686)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Andreas Dilger <adilger@clusterfs.com>
CC: Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Is the BitKeeper network protocol documented?
References: <20030118043309.GA18658@bjl1.asuk.net> <20030118052919.GA22751@work.bitmover.com> <3E296342.B3042E09@linux-m68k.org> <20030119113902.D1594@schatzie.adilger.int> <3E2B1DA7.CAA76FFF@linux-m68k.org> <20030119162614.I1594@schatzie.adilger.int>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Hi,

Andreas Dilger wrote:

> > >  You now have things you didn't
> > > have before (i.e. hourly snapshots of Linus' tree) and you still aren't
> > > happy.  I guess some people will never be happy with anything, so there is
> > > no point in trying to appease them.
> >
> > If you don't see the problem, maybe you should read
> > /usr/src/linux/COPYING again for a change.
> 
> There is nothing in the GPL which requires anyone to make their changes
> available to you the minute they make them.  The fact that you have access
> to the changes within an hour of when they are made far exceeds the
> requirements in the GPL, which only require that the source code be made
> available if you distribute the OBJECT CODE OR EXECUTABLE.

I knew I should have been more specific. It would have been enough to
read and understand the preamble.
"By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee
your freedom to share and change free software--to make sure the
software is free for all its users. [..] When we speak of free software,
we are referring to freedom, not price."
The GPL is intended to protect our freedom. How does BK fit in here? BK
is not free and even worse not everyone is allowed to use it. You don't
see a small discrepancy here?
The few who are allowed to use it have to use considerable extra effort
to make the source available to people who can't or don't want to use
BK. How does this help to promote freedom? Is the convenience of a few
really helping here?
The actual license is more for lawyers, but for the users it's a lot
more important to at least understand the preamble. It's a real pity how
easily users forget about this and only think of their own short term
advantage. Only because they can use something for free, they believe
they gained some kind of freedom, but what is this "freedom" worth if it
depends on the mercy of others or it can't be shared with others? In the
end it's the decision of every user what they do, but at least they
shouldn't fool themselves.

bye, Roman

-
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/