Re: RMS: BitKeeper bon-voyage is a happy ending

[Read some of the comments McVoy had made.
Remind me not to become a software CEO. /a]

http://kerneltrap.org/node/4966

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005, Jon S wrote:

> 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.