MESSAGE
| DATE | 2005-05-01 |
| FROM | Ruben Safir
|
| SUBJECT | Subject: [NYLXS - HANGOUT] Bitkeeper Contravery
|
April 28, 2005 Enterprise Unix Roundup: The Bitkeeper Controversy By
Amy Newman and Michael Hall
Main In Other News Recent Updates Tips of
the Trade
Michael Hall Amy Newman
A few weeks ago we made passing mention of what has since come to be
known as "the Bitkeeper Controversy." We knew there'd be more to say
about the matter at a later date, but we weren't sure when that would
be. As it turns out, we were just waiting for the right last word.
In a nutshell, Linux kernel development has depended in no small
part on a revision management system called Bitkeeper. "The Bitkeeper
Controversy" is another one of those baroque Linux stories that cause
casual observers to shake their heads and go back to wondering if
Longhorn will ship with a better version of Solitaire.
Bitkeeper was adopted after widespread complaints about how Linux
leader Linus Torvalds was keeping up with the patches sent to him;
its adoption prompted even more complaints because the software is not
Open Source or Free. As problematic as Bitkeeper's license was, however,
it solved a much bigger problem, which was the lack of a Free or Open
Source alternative that could come near Bitkeeper's capabilities. In a
case study moment of marketing insight, Bitkeeper's owner smoothed out
the license objections not by taking the product Open Source, but by
giving it away to Linux developers at no cost.
Longtime Linux observers might wonder how giving a proprietary product
away for no money would smooth over objections to the product's
proprietary nature. The answer to that question is fairly simple,
and it's part of the core conflict that forces us to use unwieldy
constructions like "the Free and Open Source software community"
or opaque acronyms like "FOSS." Part of that community (the "Free
Software" wing) has assigned a certain moral value to software; another
part of that community (the "Open Source" wing) downplays discussions
about software morality in favor of what it prefers to think of as
"pragmatism."
At the time Bitkeeper was selected, the self-styled pragmatists weren't
interested in worrying about the license behind a needed tool, and they
were even less interested in building an open source alternative. If
no suitable alternative is available, the reasoning went, we'll just
have to chalk it up to one of life's funny contradictions. And they
went back to coding.
All was as well as it could be under this arrangement, until recently,
when Bitkeeper's owner began to complain that certain Linux developers
were trying to reverse-engineer his product. After some unsuccessful
back and forth, the no-cost version of Bitkeeper was slated to be
pulled, and the Linux kernel team was left without a way to keep its
patches straight.
In the pragmatist version of this narrative, this is how the story ended:
Linus Torvalds announced he was working on his own patch tracking system,
called "git." It was picked up by the kernel developers who needed to
stay in sync with Linus, and the Linux kernel rumbled on.
Two weeks ago, that was where things stood, and it didn't stir us to
revisit the story. What got us to provide this recap was commentary from
Richard Stallman of the Free Software Foundation, who argued against
adopting Bitkeeper in 2002, and who has provided, more than anyone,
the most consistent voice in favor of considering the ethical dimensions
of software licensing:
The Free Software Movement has said 'Think of free speech, not free
beer' for 15 years. McVoy said the opposite; he invited developers
to focus on the lack of monetary price, instead of on freedom. A
free software activist would dismiss this suggestion, but those
in our community who value technical advantage above freedom and
community were susceptible to it.
[...]
It was also, whether intentionally or not, a powerful
political PR campaign, telling the free software community
that freedom-denying software is acceptable as long as
it's convenient. If we had taken that attitude towards
Unix in 1984, where would we be today? Nowhere. If we had
accepted using Unix, instead of setting out to replace it,
nothing like the GNU/Linux system would exist.
Free Software activists haven't been able to point to a
more straightforward object lesson since the legendary
closed-source printer driver, which inspired Stallman to
launch the movement in the first place.
If concerns about the dangers of lock-in and dependence on a
tool that's available only at whim aren't pragmatic, what is?
-- __________________________ Brooklyn Linux Solutions
So many immigrant groups have swept through our town that Brooklyn, like
Atlantis, reaches mythological proportions in the mind of the world -
RI Safir 1998
DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS - RI Safir 2002
http://fairuse.nylxs.com
"Yeah - I write Free Software...so SUE ME"
http://www.mrbrklyn.com - Consulting http://www.inns.net <-- Happy
Clients http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software
http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive or stories and
articles from around the net http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/downtown.html -
See the New Downtown Brooklyn....
|
|
