Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+willy=40w.ods.org@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id <S267120AbTBPQRN>; Sun, 16 Feb 2003 11:17:13 -0500
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S267143AbTBPQRM>; Sun, 16 Feb 2003 11:17:12 -0500
Received: from wohnheim.fh-wedel.de ([195.37.86.122]:50119 "EHLO
	wohnheim.fh-wedel.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id <S267120AbTBPQRL>; Sun, 16 Feb 2003 11:17:11 -0500
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 17:27:00 +0100
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rn?= Engel <joern@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de>
To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Ga=EBl?= Le Mignot <kilobug@freesurf.fr>
Cc: Larry McVoy <lm@work.bitmover.com>, lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: openbkweb-0.0
Message-ID: <20030216162700.GA24184@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de>
References: <20030214235724.GA24139@work.bitmover.com> <Pine.LNX.4.44.0302151207390.13273-100000@xanadu.home> <20030215181211.GA12315@work.bitmover.com> <plopm3wuk02soi.fsf@drizzt.kilobug.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <plopm3wuk02soi.fsf@drizzt.kilobug.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2500
Lines: 56

On Sun, 16 February 2003 15:42:21 +0100, Ga?l Le Mignot wrote:
> 
> By threating to use patents to prevent us for ever using the same idea
> as you do (even if they grew up in our own minds), you've just added a
> last proof to the fact that you don't care at all about Free Software,
> and even  Open Source  or the  Linux kernel, but  just care  about the
> money you can earn.

Money is a valid concern. Developers want to eat too, they might even
have families. So let's put things into perspective.

The market for Linux developers (Linux as in the kernel) consists
mainly of the big processor and/or server manufacturers. Some
developers work directly for them, some indirectly through a
distributor.

Processors and Servers are hardware, so those manufacturers basically
give Linux away for free, but have you pay for the hardware
afterwards. In the end, they make damn sure that you (yes, you) pay
for Linux development.

For SCM, there is no attached hardware. This is not just a different
piece of software, it is a different business model. The customers pay
for the software directly or not at all. Therefore a free software
model has very little funding.

The result of this is clearly visible. CVS is far from generating
income for the developers. This means less developers and most of
those work in their free time. Development is slow.
Bitkeeper has paying customers and generated some $4M already, which
is used to pay developers. The result is faster development. While
started later than CVS, Bitkeeper is already closer to the goal.


I don't like the bitkeeper license any more than you, but I have to
admit that Larry has figured out a way to fund SCM. And that helps the
Free Software movement, too. Now most people working on SCM projects
have a common idea, where to go. This helps to coordinate people and
speeds up development.

Larry knows this and is concerned about his income, but even with
software patents and such he will have a hard time to slow development
down more than he accelerated it by creating Bitkeeper. So calm down,
thing are not any worse than they would be without Larry.

J?rn

-- 
If you're willing to restrict the flexibility of your approach,
you can almost always do something better.
-- John Carmack
-
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/