RMS: BitKeeper bon-voyage is a happy ending

NewsForge
The Online Newspaper for Linux and Open Source
http://software.newsforge.com/
Title            RMS: BitKeeper bon-voyage is a happy ending
Date            2005.04.25 9:00
Author            Richard M. Stallman
Topic            
http://software.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=05/04/25/130207

For the first time in my life, I want to thank Larry McVoy. He recently 
eliminated a major weakness of the free software community, by 
announcing the end of his campaign to entice free software projects to 
use and promote his non-free software. Soon, Linux development will no 
longer use this program, and no longer spread the message that non-free 
software is a good thing if it's convenient.

My gratitude is limited, since it was McVoy that created the problem in 
the first place. But I still appreciate his decision to clear it up.

There are thousands of non-free programs, and most merit no special 
attention, other than developing a free replacement. What made this 
program, BitKeeper, infamous and dangerous was its marketing approach: 
inviting high-profile free software projects to use it, so as to attract 
other paying users.

McVoy made the program available gratis to free software developers. 
This did not mean it was free software for them: they were privileged 
not to part with their money, but they still had to part with their 
freedom. They gave up the fundamental freedoms that define free 
software: freedom to run the program as you wish for any purpose, 
freedom to study and change the source code as you wish, freedom to make 
and redistribute copies, and freedom to publish modified versions.

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.

McVoy's great triumph was the adoption of this program for Linux 
development. No free software project is more visible than Linux. It is 
the kernel of the GNU/Linux operating system, an essential component, 
and users often mistake it for the entire system. As McVoy surely 
planned, the use of his program in Linux development was powerful 
publicity for 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.

Of course, the Linux developers had practical reasons for what they did. 
I won't argue with those reasons; they surely know what's convenient for 
them. But they did not count, or did not value, how this would affect 
their freedom -- or the rest of the community's efforts.

A free kernel, even a whole free operating system, is not sufficient to 
use your computer in freedom; we need free software for everything else, 
too. Free applications, free drivers, free BIOS: some of those projects 
face large obstacles -- the need to reverse engineer formats or 
protocols or pressure companies to document them, or to work around or 
face down patent threats, or to compete with a network effect. Success 
will require firmness and determination. A better kernel is desirable, 
to be sure, but not at the expense of weakening the impetus to liberate 
the rest of the software world.

When the use of his program became controversial, McVoy responded with 
distraction. For instance, he promised to release it as free software if 
the company went out of business. Alas, that does no good as long as the 
company remains in business. Linux developers responded by saying, 
"We'll switch to a free program when you develop a better one." This was 
an indirect way of saying, "We made the mess, but we won't clean it up."

Fortunately, not everyone in Linux development considered a non-free 
program acceptable, and there was continuing pressure for a free 
alternative. Finally Andrew Tridgell developed an interoperating free 
program, so Linux developers would no longer need to use a non-free program.

McVoy first blustered and threatened, but ultimately chose to go home 
and take his ball with him: he withdrew permission for gratis use by 
free software projects, and Linux developers will move to other 
software. The program they no longer use will remain unethical as long 
as it is non-free, but they will no longer promote it, nor by using it 
teach others to give freedom low priority. We can begin to forget about 
that program.

We should not forget the lesson we have learned from it: Non-free 
programs are dangerous to you and to your community. Don't let them get 
a place in your life.

Copyright 2005 Richard Stallman. Verbatim copying and distribution of 
this entire article are permitted worldwide without royalty in any 
medium provided this notice is preserved.