From: Roman Zippel <zippel@linux-m68k.org>
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?
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 15:18:25 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3E2C0531.FD7E54BB@linux-m68k.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 20030119162614.I1594@schatzie.adilger.int
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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-01-20 14:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 63+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-01-18 4:33 Is the BitKeeper network protocol documented? Jamie Lokier
2003-01-18 4:57 ` David Schwartz
2003-01-18 5:10 ` Jamie Lokier
2003-01-18 7:23 ` David Schwartz
2003-01-18 7:54 ` [OFFTOPIC] Is the repository of a GPL'd program itself under the GPL? Jamie Lokier
2003-01-20 0:50 ` Richard Stallman
2003-01-18 5:02 ` Is the BitKeeper network protocol documented? Andrew Morton
2003-01-18 5:15 ` Jamie Lokier
2003-01-18 5:29 ` Larry McVoy
2003-01-18 6:11 ` Tupshin Harper
2003-01-18 6:20 ` Kevin Puetz
2003-01-18 6:39 ` Larry McVoy
2003-01-18 8:09 ` Jamie Lokier
2003-01-18 8:25 ` Andrew Morton
2003-01-18 14:22 ` Roman Zippel
2003-01-19 18:39 ` Andreas Dilger
2003-01-19 18:55 ` Jamie Lokier
2003-01-19 21:50 ` Roman Zippel
2003-01-19 23:26 ` Andreas Dilger
2003-01-19 23:57 ` David Schwartz
2003-01-20 0:20 ` Andreas Dilger
2003-01-20 0:38 ` David Schwartz
2003-01-20 15:52 ` Horst von Brand
2003-01-20 19:43 ` David Schwartz
2003-01-20 19:46 ` David Schwartz
2003-01-21 7:56 ` Horst von Brand
2003-01-20 14:18 ` Roman Zippel [this message]
2003-01-22 12:24 ` Matthias Andree
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2003-01-18 6:22 Jamie Lokier
[not found] <20030119235742.AAA13049%shell.webmaster.com@whenever>
2003-01-20 0:36 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2003-01-20 1:05 ` David Schwartz
2003-01-20 14:28 ` Dana Lacoste
2003-01-20 19:00 ` David Schwartz
2003-01-20 19:31 ` David Lang
2003-01-20 20:19 ` David Schwartz
2003-01-20 20:40 ` John Bradford
2003-01-20 20:48 ` Andreas Dilger
2003-01-20 21:14 ` David Schwartz
2003-01-20 21:58 ` John Bradford
2003-01-20 21:37 ` Sam Ravnborg
2003-01-20 21:41 ` Rik van Riel
2003-01-21 16:04 ` Dana Lacoste
2003-01-21 18:34 ` David Schwartz
2003-01-21 18:49 ` John Bradford
2003-01-21 18:58 ` Sam Ravnborg
2003-01-21 19:27 ` Dana Lacoste
2003-01-21 21:04 ` David Schwartz
2003-01-21 19:51 ` Hua Zhong
2003-01-22 7:10 ` Jamie Lokier
2003-01-22 7:21 ` John Alvord
2003-01-22 15:18 ` Larry McVoy
2003-01-22 15:27 ` Dana Lacoste
2003-01-22 15:38 ` Larry McVoy
2003-01-20 1:46 ` David Lang
2003-01-20 1:52 ` Andre Hedrick
[not found] <20030120010504.AAA18836%shell.webmaster.com@whenever>
2003-01-20 1:37 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2003-01-20 15:55 Theodore Ts'o
2003-01-20 18:53 ` David Schwartz
[not found] <20030120194430.AAA20700%shell.webmaster.com@whenever>
2003-01-20 20:32 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2003-01-20 21:27 ` David Schwartz
2003-01-21 8:51 ` Horst von Brand
2003-01-21 0:28 Cort Dougan
2003-01-21 19:22 Larry McVoy
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=3E2C0531.FD7E54BB@linux-m68k.org \
--to=zippel@linux-m68k.org \
--cc=adilger@clusterfs.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lm@bitmover.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox