Re: Listmaster request: Do not blacklist rms@gnu.org

[Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com>]

On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 01:24:48PM -0400, James Blackwell wrote:
> Though I'm sure you remember what you've said, I'll summarize for those
> that somehow managed to slip into this thread out of context. You write a
> proprietary source code revision system by the name of bitkeeper. You
> offered free licences to linux kernel developers among others. Your
> motivation is that you can use linux kernel development as a showcase
> example when you hunt down people that are willing to pay you. 

This is where we disagree.  BitKeeper was started to help Linus.
Pure and simple.  Maybe it's not a well known thing, I thought it was,
but it's true all the same.  I quit my job at Cobalt, had about 4 or
5 hour design discussion with Linus, DaveM and Richard Henderson on my
living room floor and got to work.  

The business side of BK came into being after it became clear it was
a much bigger job than we had originally hoped.  We either had to make
BK pay for itself or drop it long before it was useable.  From a free
software point of view I can see where you would wish we had dropped it.
But free software wasn't our goal, our goal was to off load Linus and
help Linux.  Yeah, it would be nice if we could have somehow done that
with a free software product.  When you demonstrate how to do that, I'll
be happy to follow in your footsteps.  Until then, the license is how it
is because that's only known way that will produce enough money to support
the product.  

Try to understand that the point is to support the kernel development
process, not make RMS or you happy, and it costs a boatload of money
to do what we are doing.  There's another man year of work put into
BitKeeper every month.  I don't see you volunteering to pay for that
continued development.  When you do, we'll talk, until then you're
just flapping your gums.
-- 
---
Larry McVoy            	 lm at bitmover.com           http://www.bitmover.com/lm