| |||||||||||||
An Interview with Tom Lord of Arch (O'ReillyNet)An Interview with Tom Lord of Arch (O'ReillyNet)Posted Sep 25, 2004 0:35 UTC (Sat) by zenaan (subscriber, #3778)Parent article: An Interview with Tom Lord of Arch (O'ReillyNet)
I used Bitkeeper for about two weeks, before being told that since I'd said this on the arch list: "I'd cringe if I had to use Bitkeeper" (http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-arch-users/2004-03/...), and because of my public pro-stance on free software (as they had researched from my homepage - http://www.soulsound.net/), I was on their shitlist and they would not sell me, and therefore the company I currently work for, a license to use Bitkeeper.
Needless to say, I found this a little confronting, took stock of my temporary moral slip in even considering the use of proprietary software (forgive me Free Software gods), and promptly got stuck into arch/tla, which I've now been using for about a month.
In my experience, tla is more flexible - the design really does reach high, although the learning curve (at the moment at least) is a little higher for sure - you really do have to go read the tutorial, wiki, etc. I found the people on the gnu-arch-users@gnu.org mailing list to be very helpful though - even if personal/ power tiffs were going on, those involved never ceased to be supportive in replying to my questions.
Hope that's a useful datapoint,
(Log in to post comments)
An Interview with Tom Lord of Arch (O'ReillyNet) Posted Sep 26, 2004 2:50 UTC (Sun) by lm (guest, #6402) [Link] Just to set the record straight, Zenaan apparently had made it clear that it was his goal to lift technology from BitKeeper and put it into arch. The links he posted seem to support that.
I wasn't involved in the sales discussion but I approve of the outcome. He was looking at a very small number of seats. If you were us would you put tens of millions of dollars of technology in the hands of someone who has stated it is his goal to have a GPLed version of that software?
We have no problem doing business with people in the open source world, we have sold a lot of seats into that space. But we do ask that you treat us with respect. If you can't do that, well, then you can't have the software.
I understand you all want everything to be free, I want a porsche. In both cases, we have to earn it. In the case of this software, if you want a free version then go write one. But you don't get to sit there with our software as a blueprint, that's simply not fair in our opinion and since we wrote the software our opinion carries some weight.
--lm
Unable to buy a copy of BK Posted Sep 26, 2004 4:11 UTC (Sun) by kevinbsmith (guest, #4778) [Link] This is really interesting!
In the past, on various discussion lists, several people have said that it's reasonable for BK to rescind the gratis license for anyone they consider to be a competitor, because that person could always choose to buy a copy. While I strongly dislike that policy, it is defensible.
Now, we discover that competitors (and apparently employers of individuals who may be competitors) cannot even *buy* a copy. While this policy is (probably) still within BK's legal rights, it certainly changes the debate.
This seems to be yet another piece of strong evidence that relying on proprietary software deep in your toolchain is risky. Especially one with a history of the license becoming more and more restrictive over time.
Unable to buy a copy of BK Posted Sep 26, 2004 5:04 UTC (Sun) by lm (guest, #6402) [Link] Sigh. You guys are missing the point. Every commercial software license in the world has words to the effect "no reverse engineering". Go look, they all have it.
That clause is far more restrictive than "you can't compete with us". It means you aren't allowed to poke at the software for *any* reason as opposed to only if you are chosing to compete with us. There is easily a 1000:1 ratio of random engineers to source management engineers, we were trying to avoid sweeping everyone into the same category.
"You can't compete" is a *subset* of no reverse engineering. The intent of that clause was to only target those people who wanted to destroy our livelihood. It was explicitly designed to leave the door open for people who had to poke at the software to do something we hadn't anticipated. In other words, the clause you hate so much was designed to help you unless you had an active goal of hurting us. Oh, my, how unreasonable of us.
Unable to buy a copy of BK Posted Sep 26, 2004 6:08 UTC (Sun) by joedrew (guest, #828) [Link] "You can't compete" is a *subset* of no reverse engineering.It most certainly is not. I can compete with Bitkeeper without ever looking at its output, code or feature set. I won't comment as to the enforceability of your anti-reverse-engineering clause, because those in general have not been tested in American courts, and I'm not an American.
Unable to buy a copy of BK Posted Sep 26, 2004 6:09 UTC (Sun) by dvdeug (subscriber, #10998) [Link] "Reverse engineering" is not poking at the software. It's disassembling the software. So, no, "you can't compete" is not a subset of "reverse engineering". In any case, "reverse engineering" is specifically permitted, irrespective of license, in many jurisdictions, and I find it very questionable ethically to tell people they can't poke around and see how something works.
Instead of just building the best mousetrap, you want to try and hide how your mousetrap works. Legal or illegal, it doesn't help get the best mousetrap on the market, and you can't really expect us to like it.
Unable to buy a copy of BK Posted Sep 26, 2004 7:09 UTC (Sun) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link] On the meaning of reverse engineering, it depends on who you ask. In theacademic and most traditional meaning of the word it means any process to turn a working product back into specifications, normally with the intention to use those to produce another product with some or all aspects of the original.
But yes, most people just use it to mean "disassemble".
Unable to buy a copy of BK Posted Sep 26, 2004 19:25 UTC (Sun) by dvdeug (subscriber, #10998) [Link] I can see that more general definition. However, "poking at" doesn't imply a process to me; keeping your eyes open during the normal course of using the program is not reverse engineering. Even playing around with a program to see how it works and how you could improve your program isn't really reverse engineering to me.
I seriously doubt that most of these people who were refused licenses were going to reverse engineer the program, instead just looking at it and possibly poking at it.
Unable to buy a copy of BK Posted Sep 26, 2004 7:05 UTC (Sun) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link] But few have a "we won't sell to anyone who employs or has employedsomeone who has or has potentially discussed reverse engineering (or our product(s) or the protocols they use" (not an actual quote from a BM license or sales person, it's just a characterization of what LM said).
No-reverse-engineering clauses really rub me the wrong way even without
I'm changing my mind again: no BitKeeper for me, ever.
Unable to buy a copy of BK Posted Sep 26, 2004 11:34 UTC (Sun) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] Quite. I was going to recommend it at work (~1500 seats): I'm certainly not now. It's arch with lots of wrapper scripts for us.
It'll be more annoying for me, but less disruptive than having to have everyone who's ever worked for us watch what they say on every net-accessible source in case we say something that annoys BitMover.
Note: I've said things that have annoyed representatives of Sun, and Oracle, and even Microsoft; I've made it plain that I'm in favour of competitors to Oracle springing up, as well, and the Sun people knew I used Linux. None of them have decided to stop selling me (or the company I work for) things because of it.
(And, yes, my non-lawyer's memory agrees that the no-reverse-engineering clause is not enforceable across the EU, although doubtless the copyright lunatics are bringing in something to reverse that regrettably just state of affairs.)
Unable to buy a copy of BK Posted Sep 27, 2004 3:42 UTC (Mon) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] 1500 corporate Arch users? There just ain't no way, no matter how many wrapper scripts you write. Arch barely scales to 1/10 that many users right now. Watch the Arch mailing list and IRC and notice the number of merge issues that need to be resolved by hand. It seems a small issue, but with 1500 users, this sort of manual labor will bury you.
You'd best give them a year or two to get the speed up and simplify the merging. Otherwise, you're going to have 1500 people using Arch as nothing more than a poor-man's RCS.
If you do manage to use Arch's features with even 200 corporate developers, please write an article about it! That would certainly be a potent milestone.
Unable to buy a copy of BK Posted Sep 27, 2004 5:12 UTC (Mon) by atai (subscriber, #10977) [Link] can BK or even Clearcase handle 1500 users working on the same code base? I assume that's what you mean in your message.
Unable to buy a copy of BK Posted Oct 1, 2004 1:04 UTC (Fri) by lm (guest, #6402) [Link] Yes, BK can handle 1500 users working on the same source base, or pretty close to it. There are about that many people checking stuff into the linux kernel trees. You can check it out on www.bkbits.net but truth in advertising, not all of those users listed are actually using BK, some of them are proxied into the system via patches imported by someone else.
That said, I'm pretty sure there are >1000 actual BK users working on the Linux kernel tree directly. BK uses a lease based model for its licensing which means that those users connect to openlogging.org once a month to get a lease (this all happens in the background, nobody realizes it is there, which is - in my opinion - how a license server should work, I'm not a flexlm fan). We can correlate those with the stuff on bkbits.net and openlogging.org and a 1000 looks to be a lower bound. I think it's quite a bit more than but I haven't worked through all the data to be sure (we have many many GB of logs). So 1500 all on one source base? I don't think we have any commercial users with that many users all working on the same source base, that's pretty atypical anyway, source is usually broken up into chunks with different groups working on different chunks.
Unable to buy a copy of BK Posted Sep 27, 2004 10:47 UTC (Mon) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] They don't commit that often :) many of them are using it as a distribution mechanism.
But I guess it'll be SVN for now, anyway: it seems that `like CVS' is more important than I thought it was.
Unable to buy a copy of BK Posted Sep 28, 2004 3:50 UTC (Tue) by Talli (guest, #25044) [Link] Nix,
I am starting a company with Tom Lord to develop a company around GNU arch. If you would like to chat about how GNU arch can be used at your dev shop, we would be delighted to discuss that with you.
You can reach me at talli-at-seyza.com
Thanks and looking forward to chatting.
Talli
Unable to buy a copy of BK Posted Sep 26, 2004 13:15 UTC (Sun) by mbp (subscriber, #2737) [Link] There is a difference between "reverse engineering" and "poke at". (OK, I am not an IP lawyer...) No proprietary licence allows you to disassemble the binaries; that's fine with me. But no reasonable licence forbids the customer from looking at the files containing their own data, or thinking about the design, or "poking" the program.
I completely defend your free-market right to refuse to sell to whoever you want, and certainly your right to choose a proprietary licence. But I have to say all these shifts in the licence worry me. Just the other day I recommended bk to a business user. Had I known about this I would have thought again. I couldn't recommend storing code in a system whose licence can be denied because you dislike something that one employee said.
My employer competes with IBM products, but are they going to suddenly revoke our Clearcase licence, or refuse to sell a new one? I certainly hope not. I suppose the possibility is a strong argument for using a free system as soon as there is one that's good enough.
Unable to buy a copy of BK Posted Sep 26, 2004 13:47 UTC (Sun) by hppnq (guest, #14462) [Link] The thing with licenses is, that they have to be extremely accurate in what is permitted and what not. So if your clause is intended for a particular reason, but it does not cover it, it is wrong -- you cannot blame people for not trusting you will adhere to the original "spirit" of the license.So you'll have to explain it a bit better, if you care. Right now, I would never recommend using Bitkeeper *exactly* because of this clause. Maybe I don't fully get it, but as a licensee I would be worried about letting you know that I'm thinking about switching to another version control system.
Unable to buy a copy of BK Posted Nov 25, 2004 18:45 UTC (Thu) by djao (subscriber, #4263) [Link] Larry,I freely admit that I am not at all involved with or affected by anything related to bitkeeper, but even as a detached party, your license shifts do worry me. Two years ago you said, or at least strongly implied, that BKCL had no non-compete clause. In fact you even specifically mentioned that BKCL did not, in order to defend yourself against the (at the time) controversial notion of BKL having a non-compete clause. Now we find that not only the free users but also even the commercial users of BK are not permitted to develop competing software. Can you imagine (say) Microsoft refusing to license Windows to any person developing competing OSs, or to any company employing any person developing competing OSs? That is EVIL. You can't claim on the one hand that the no-reverse-engineering clause already prohibits competing against you, and on the other hand refuse to sell BK to competitors. This very position is a contradiction in terms -- if the clause is sufficient protection, then why do you feel the need to further protect yourself with discriminatory sales tactics? I can understand your logic in not making BK free software, but I cannot understand your logic in refusing to sell BK to competitors. The no-reverse-engineering clause already provides you enough protection. Any incremental gain to BK from sales discrimination is not worth committing such an evil act, if only for public relations reasons.
An Interview with Tom Lord of Arch (O'ReillyNet) Posted Sep 26, 2004 10:36 UTC (Sun) by dpj (guest, #24991) [Link] Just take the time to think of the following clauses if they existed:
- In gcc: your are not allowed to use gcc to develop a compiler
Don't you think it would be a very silly world !
An Interview with Tom Lord of Arch (O'ReillyNet) Posted Sep 26, 2004 11:36 UTC (Sun) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] IIRC, that Visual Studio clause actually exists. It's obviously totally unenforceable (well, in the UK at least, a court would laugh at it; you don't need to be a lawyer to understand this, a straightforward reading of the Unfair Contract Terms Act is enough; which is good, because that's all I can do myself :) ).
And yes, it's utterly insane.
An Interview with Tom Lord of Arch (O'ReillyNet) Posted Sep 26, 2004 12:55 UTC (Sun) by ballombe (subscriber, #9523) [Link] Be careful, refusing a sell based on opinions of the buyer is a criminal offense insome jurisdictions.
Bitkeeper customer selection Posted Sep 26, 2004 13:39 UTC (Sun) by sphealey (guest, #1028) [Link] Interesting theory. How do you handle the Robinson-Patman act and similar laws in the US? Have you ever had to deal with the FTC?
sPh
An Interview with Tom Lord of Arch (O'ReillyNet) Posted Sep 26, 2004 13:56 UTC (Sun) by hppnq (guest, #14462) [Link] You actually screen potential customers?! ;-)Ironically, I think the goal you are trying to achieve is best served by applying for a patent.
An Interview with Tom Lord of Arch (O'ReillyNet) Posted Sep 26, 2004 15:03 UTC (Sun) by lm (guest, #6402) [Link] Rather than respond to all of your comments, which would just fan the flames, let's try this.
It's easy for you to tell us we have done the wrong thing and perhaps that's all you wish to do. I tend it act in good faith so I tend to believe that some of you are genuine in your dislike for our choices. OK, fair enough. So what should we have done? GPLing it wasn't an answer, BK would be no better than Arch because there is no way to pay for not fun work. Patents probably would have been a better choice for protection but remember that I had a goal of helping Linus, and there was little chance that he would adopt a patented technology.
I tried for years to explain our choices and it always ended up in a flame fest just like this. So you tell me what we should have done and for that matter what we should do today. I'm really interested in seeing what you suggest, believe it or not, all of this fuss is because this is the best way I could find that met all the goals, including the goal of helping Linus.
An Interview with Tom Lord of Arch (O'ReillyNet) Posted Sep 26, 2004 15:54 UTC (Sun) by lm (guest, #6402) [Link] I forgot to add that I'm not going to be around today to comment on your suggestions though I will read them later. I'm hanging out in my shop making metal shavings:
This is the last completed project, a restoration of a parks planer:
http://www.bitmover.com/lm/parks/
and this is the current project, getting an old mill working:
http://www.bitmover.com/lm/mill/
and I have to admit that I like working on these old tools one heck of a lot more than arguing the finer points of licensing. It would be nice if you guys came up with a model that (a) made you happy, (b) kept Linus happy, and (c) made us enough money that I could spend a lot of time in the shop and never, ever, ever have a licensing discussion again. Any time any of you want to take over the job of running BitMover you just send in your application, OK?
Protecting BitMover's livelyhood Posted Sep 26, 2004 15:54 UTC (Sun) by Felix.Braun (subscriber, #3032) [Link] Anybody who has followed Linux kernel development for the past couple of years must be convinced that your company has developed a highly capable tool by looking at the evidence provided in the form of the high quality kernel releases (which was probably exactly the effect you intended). Irrespective of your legitimate commercial intentions, the way you chose to promote your product has greatly benefitted the FLOSS community by increasing the kernel maintainers' productivity. You deserve to be applauded for this. Patents probably would have been a better choice for protection but remember that I had a goal of helping Linus, and there was little chance that he would adopt a patented technology. However, it seems to me that you take Linus to be more stupid than he is. Do you really think that he would have rejected a patented technology just because they are EVILTM, but he would tolerate a sales practice that achieves the same effects? If he accepts BitMover's decision not to grant a free license to developers who intend to develop a free alternative, maybe he would not have rejected BK as a tool even if it included patented technology.
"So what should we have done?" Posted Sep 26, 2004 15:55 UTC (Sun) by kevinbsmith (guest, #4778) [Link] Speaking only for myself, and with the benefit of hindsight, I would suggest two actions that may or may not be applicable to the past, present, or future, in this universe or any other:
1. Don't keep changing the license. An unstable (and especially a revokeable) gratis license is scary. The fact that the non-gratis license also seems to be unstable and revokeable (at least in how it is enforced) is really scary. If people find a loophole that you find catastrophic, try to close all similar loopholes once and for all, rather than tightening your grip in a series of small steps. If they find another loophole, it might be better to just leave it open (possibly with a plea based on ethical/moral grounds for people not to use it). Also, realize that your goal of strict control may be incompatible with your desire to have the gratis version used on the Linux kernel.
2. Don't try quite so hard to ride the FLOSS (free/libre open source software) coattails. You have released a gratis product that helps certain open source developers. Big deal--so has Microsoft. That does not make you a patron of FLOSS, so don't expect FLOSS advocates to heap praise upon you. You continue to fight hard against certain other FLOSS projects (arch being an example). Expect to be criticized for that. You are not part of the FLOSS community, so don't expect to be treated as if you were.
It's a very emotional topic, and I appreciate that you are doing your best to run a business. Your abrasive public persona ceratinly doesn't help your cause. Hopefully you already realize that.
I also acknowlege that the kernel has benefitted greatly (at least in the short run) by using BK. I'm still concerned about the long run, however.
An Interview with Tom Lord of Arch (O'ReillyNet) Posted Sep 26, 2004 16:24 UTC (Sun) by hppnq (guest, #14462) [Link] [ Thanks, Larry. Indeed, let's not get into another flame fest. ;-) ]I do believe you are trying to satisfy a number of constraints while solving a difficult problem, and that your intentions are good. Accepting a license, however, means that I cannot trust anything that is not in the license. Any restrictions and rights regarding the software (say, BitKeeper) have to be in there, fair, square, and unambiguously, or I won't accept it. I'm sure companies are even more anal about this than I am, especially the ones that are your (potential) customers. Have you ever considered using the GPL (or similar) for the basic, freely available functionality, and selling vendor added functionality and services to your customers? That way, I think, you get the best of both worlds. I see that it still involves the risk you are afraid of taking now, but I cannot believe that your customers are merely buying a license for the software. Surely you provide lots and lots of additional services? Sell that, and make us all happy. ;-) You wouldn't be the first to choose this path, others are doing it rather succesfully, I think. Even if you concentrate on the actual software development and not so much the accompanying services, you would still do a lot better than your possible competitors, right? (Being the programmer that you are, I mean. ;-) This is a time for new business models, and I respect the one you have chosen, even if I don't think it's the best solution. (By the way, the current changes in business models are not restricted to producers. The way things are going now, the fact that software is Open Source might very well be the reason why consumers will choose to buy it in the first place.)
An Interview with Tom Lord of Arch (O'ReillyNet) Posted Sep 26, 2004 19:14 UTC (Sun) by dvdeug (subscriber, #10998) [Link] GPLing it wasn't the question in my mind. The problem with your license in my mind is that it plays all these games with who can and can't use the software; there seems to be hidden land mines for all those who don't want to be tied exclusively to BitKeeper forever. A "no reverse engineering" clause is at least user neutral.
And, as someone else said, don't expect us to ever love your non-open-source license, even if it's more reasonable. Your goals and needs aren't ours, and even if we understand why you're doing it, doesn't mean we have to like it. To those of us who consider ourselves part of a free software community, you're an outsider, and will always be so long as you use don't use a Free license.
An Interview with Tom Lord of Arch (O'ReillyNet) Posted Sep 26, 2004 20:30 UTC (Sun) by hppnq (guest, #14462) [Link] Why rub his nose in it? You don't like the license, just don't use BitKeeper. Even if I do agree with you on the technical points (I'd rather see BitKeeper get GPLed), it's not up to us, and coming down on Larry won't help the discussion. ;-)Not everything is black and white -- and it's certainly not "us against them" here --, and though I think Bitmover's behaviour is likely to scare away customers (because of the apparent potential customer screening and reverse engineering obscurity), it is still their decision, up to some legal point. Really, let's not start flaming each other to smithereens here.
An Interview with Tom Lord of Arch (O'ReillyNet) Posted Sep 27, 2004 3:41 UTC (Mon) by dvdeug (subscriber, #10998) [Link] Not every discussion is a flame. He asked for suggestions, he got suggestions. If he doesn't want to hear comments about his decisions in this matter, he's welcome to avoid discussion groups where it's being discussed.
An Interview with Tom Lord of Arch (O'ReillyNet) Posted Sep 27, 2004 10:40 UTC (Mon) by hppnq (guest, #14462) [Link] Telling people off because they do not do exactly what you would like them to do is hardly a discussion. ;-)Relax. Larry merely responded to a comment that involved him, he didn't ask for your opinion on his position in the Open Source community. If you disagree with him (and you've got plenty of reasons to do so), just stick to the facts. It might just be that he has contributed more to Open Source than you.
An Interview with Tom Lord of Arch (O'ReillyNet) Posted Sep 27, 2004 15:54 UTC (Mon) by dvdeug (subscriber, #10998) [Link] If telling people off because they don't do exactly what you want is hardly a discussion, what exactly are you doing? I've never told him what to do; I've merely explained my viewpoint. Larry has complained about people taking advantage of their freedoms; that could be construed as "did not do exactly as he would like them to". Why is it that you don't respond to him?
It's not about who has contributed more to Open Source (aka the dick length war). I respect what he's done in the past, but he's not a member of the community as long as he's wearing the BitKeeper hat. There are many free software programmers who also write proprietary software, they just don't claim that the free software community should respect them for that.
An Interview with Tom Lord of Arch (O'ReillyNet) Posted Sep 27, 2004 16:34 UTC (Mon) by hppnq (guest, #14462) [Link] Again, relax please. Take the time to read the comments. If I didn't make myself clear, please let me know and I'll try to express myself better, okay? But don't twist my (or someone else's) words or insinuate something that has never been said -- I won't respond to that.What I am trying to get through to you, is that the Open Source community is more than just a bunch of people who release software under the GPL. There are very valid contributions one can make, that do not directly involve developing free software: allowing people to use your hardware, bandwidth, time, intelligence, yes even your proprietary software, in order to further the development of Open Source. At least, that's the way I see it. You are free to have your own opinion. But even by the narrowest of definitions, I would consider Larry part of the Open Source community, because of past contributions and his current involvement; I would even consider BitKeeper to be part of its infrastructure, if only because lots of kernel developers use it to develop one of Open Source's flagships. (There are many more Open Source projects that use it though.) Mind you: you may not like BitKeeper's part in Open Source development, but it is a fact. So, while you are very much entitled to disagree with me on anything you like, I found the last paragraph your top comment extremely rude, unnecessary and not at all representative of any community I would like to think I am part of. I've tried to tell you that in, I think, quite a reasonable way. Now we can argue at length about who said what and how it is to be interpreted, but we'd be boring the pants off of every other visitor of this page. I could also post the links to my direct responses to Larry on this very page, but that would be silly, right?
An Interview with Tom Lord of Arch (O'ReillyNet) Posted Sep 29, 2004 2:17 UTC (Wed) by dvdeug (subscriber, #10998) [Link] The free software community is a collection of people who work on free software, by whatever means. People who actively discourage other people from working on free software aren't part of that community. It's not good behavior for a member of that community to encourage the use of free software, either. I realize there's more than one definition of the community, but that's part of mine.
I suggest you follow your own advice. You use smileys to hide your attacks; they don't help. I read your comments, and insinuating that I don't is rude. If you want me to read your comments in a friendly light, I suggest you give me the same courtesy.
An Interview with Tom Lord of Arch (O'ReillyNet) Posted Sep 29, 2004 5:29 UTC (Wed) by hppnq (guest, #14462) [Link] Oh well. ;-)
An Interview with Tom Lord of Arch (O'ReillyNet) Posted Sep 27, 2004 11:32 UTC (Mon) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link] One point to bear in mind.
Larry has said, right from the get-go, that the only thing he was opposed to was someone using BitKeeper to "build a better BitKeeper". This appears to be a perfect case of exactly that scenario.
While I'm concerned about the "we won't even sell you a licence" aspect, a scenario like this should have been forseen because Larry has been saying this sort of thing for ever. BitKeeper has a lot of "trade secrets" and other stuff in it that Larry wants to protect. Can you blame him for not wanting people to lift that and put it into "Free" version-control systems.
And as he has said in the past, the trouble with GPL'ing it is that it would cut off a large chunk of his revenue. Without that revenue, he couldn't afford to pay people to work on it. And without a paid development staff, new development would hit a brick wall - I know - I'm trying to build a Free clone of an existing system, and without time (which needs money) progress is horribly slow :-(
Cheers,
An Interview with Tom Lord of Arch (O'ReillyNet) Posted Sep 27, 2004 12:43 UTC (Mon) by hppnq (guest, #14462) [Link] Exactly.The interesting thing, of course, is that Larry's problem is usually solved by patenting the invention. If the patent system hadn't been so horribly abused, this could have been a good, pragmatic -- but not perfect -- solution to the problem. So let's consider the chances of someone building a "better BitKeeper" with patents out of the way. First, the scenario in which BitKeeper is released under the GPL. The way I see it, all Open Source developers who merely care about a SCM system would probably contribute to it, rather than taking the source and cloning it, or using vital parts of it in a new system. Really, most people have got better things to do than to write another major piece of software. Apart from that, it is not that simple to rip off an Open Source project. Why doesn't Hans Reiser fork the Linux kernel and be done with the constant hassle over ReiserFS? Because it just would not work. The Linux kernel has plenty of momentum, and that is without any corporate backing. The pure power of Linux is *exactly* the fact that the development process involves many, many people contributing to it (partly because of BitKeeper ;-). Given the current state of affairs in the SCM world, BitKeeper would not have a lot of trouble attracting committed, enthusiastic community of developers and users. That leaves the people who have got the intention and the means to grab BitKeeper, slap the name BitSneaker on it and sell it as if it were their own. Quite possibly the intention is there, but are the means too? Because BitKeeper is released under the GPL in this scenario, BitSneaker would have to be Open Source too -- so at least the competition would be fair in that respect. But as long as BitKeeper is backed by enough Open Source developers, the BitSneaker project is doomed: BitKeeper will continue to become better and better and therefore alone more interesting to customers. The second scenario is, of course, the one where BitKeeper is released under a closed license. Ignore the fact that people can use it free of charge -- Bitmover has made sure that anyone with an interest in SCM systems can never contribute anything to BitKeeper. Now, all the burden of developing it is on Bitmover's shoulders. There are plenty of developers with a need for a good SCM system, but they cannot use BitKeeper. Inevitably, this problem will be solved by those people, be it by contributing to arch, cvs or starting from scratch. It may take a couple of years, but they will get there. At that point, BitKeeper has an Open Source competitor for sure. People were laughting at OpenOffice two or three years ago, and now we see Microsoft releasing the code to Office to selected parties. Apart from the Open Source developers, who just want a working SCM system, we still have those who might have the intention of making money off of BitKeeper technology. The fact that the license says "Thou shalt not poke" will not stop them from trying to see how BitKeeper ticks, and it will probably not hold in court anyway (IANAL ;-) if there is no evidence of line-by-line copying and something like a patent that protects BitKeeper's internals. It will, of course, be more difficult to extract the interesting bits from BitKeeper, but it will not be impossible. Even worse, competitors might get away with an inferior product that looks like it does the same thing (think VHS versus Betamax) because no one will be able to look at the internals of both programs. That's a long story, and it's not even complete. ;-) Of course it is biased, but in a fair way, I would hope -- the bias is away from common notions, like the one that Open Source is easy to rip off and closed source is not.
To Larry Posted Sep 27, 2004 5:15 UTC (Mon) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] What you did was OK, as long as you realize it won't be forever. You made some money, and are making some money, but since you don't have patent protection it's temporary; at some point, the free software replacements will be good enough. If you spout off at the mouth at those ungrateful wretches cloning your code, you'll only alienate people; if you attempt to slow down cloning efforts by trying to withhold licensing from whole organizations because they have one person who's helping out with arch, or monotone, or whatever, you'll just dry up sales faster.You can still compete, for a while, based on better services and support, while keeping your app proprietary. But you need to recognize that at some point your existing revenue stream is going to go away. If, by then, you have other products and services in the pipeline, or new capabilities in BK others can't match, you'll make it, otherwise you won't. But your righteousness just makes you look bad. Making BK available to Linus wasn't charity, it was marketing, and brilliant marketing at that. The publicity you've received is more valuable than if you spent 100% of your revenue on advertising; it is the main reason why your paying customers know who you are. Because of this, the Linux kernel developers and users are not in your moral debt. Also, because of this, getting into bitter arguments with free software developers counteracts the logic of helping out Linus in the first place: you're trying to get good publicity for your product. The last thing I'd want to recommend to my boss is a supplier who appears to always be on the verge of suing his customers. If I were in your position, I'd be quieter and less defensive. If people beat you up for not being DFSG-free, you can simply say that you respect their choice not to use your software; it's not worth arguing. Same if they beat up Linus for using your stuff; you don't need to fight that one. Write a FAQ and point people to it when they make the same point again and again.
To Larry Posted Sep 27, 2004 6:11 UTC (Mon) by hppnq (guest, #14462) [Link] You make some good points, Joe, though I think Larry really has been looking for a solution that would allow him to both help Linus (for whatever reasons, obviously marketing was one of them) and make a lot of money out of his product. Righteousness doesn't have to enter the picture, we all try to look like we're right. ;-)(Better stick to the facts. One of those is, that Larry has made several contributions to Open Source. Someone else made the observation that Larry is not a part of the Free Software community because of the BitKeeper license -- so much for righteousness. ;-)
An Interview with Tom Lord of Arch (O'ReillyNet) Posted Sep 28, 2004 2:38 UTC (Tue) by snitm (guest, #4031) [Link] I understand you all want everything to be free, I want a porsche.Well that makes it all too clear now doesn't it... you should've just said 'screw you guys I want [more] money'. Capitalism is on your side, so I'd say go buy your hard earned porsche and let your mill ride shotgun... and sprinkle metal shavings from the car as you drive.
An Interview with Tom Lord of Arch (O'ReillyNet) Posted Sep 28, 2004 7:55 UTC (Tue) by darthmdh (guest, #8032) [Link] Some people have goals and work for them. Other people want everything for nothing. I think this is the distinction being drawn here. What licenses like the GPL protect is "freedom". Some people believe that if they purchase something, they can do whatever they like (within the bounds of the law) with that thing. For example, if I buy a car from some General Motors company I can drive it wherever I please, not just on roads sponsored by General Motors. I can take out the 2 litre, 4 cylinder combustion engine that came with it and replace it with a battery-powered "whipper snipper" engine. Or a jet turbine. Or a french fry.Don't try to bring capitalism vs communism into this, its irrelevent. The mistaken people are akin to those who would claim they will never drive a Ford - because its not made by General Motors - and they expect GM to provide them with vehicles free of charge, with insurance, registration, and all fuel and maintenance costs, forever, included. They don't honestly care about cars or driving when it comes down to it, and most of them would advocate GM-only roads. Sensible people would obtain the vehicle that best suited their needs, would happily recompense the manufacturer for the time and effort they saved them in not having to do everything necessary to produce roadworthy vehicles themselves, and would go to the service station to perform the necessary ongoing costs of having a vehicle in the first place. Claiming the GPL is anything related to the first crowd is insulting.
An Interview with Tom Lord of Arch (O'ReillyNet) Posted Sep 28, 2004 14:48 UTC (Tue) by snitm (guest, #4031) [Link] I think you read into my statements a bit too much. My point about capitalism is that he'll be just fine in that he and BitMover are providing a product people are willing to buy (akin to your "sensible people").
Now if we were to take your GM vs Ford analogy a bit further in the context of BitKeeper.. GM and Ford will gladly sell cars to each other; even if their intent is to evaluate/use their respective technological gains to compete with each other.
An Interview with Tom Lord of Arch (O'ReillyNet) Posted Sep 28, 2004 14:36 UTC (Tue) by lm (guest, #6402) [Link] Some people have no sense of humor, I was joking. I have a wife and two kids and a VW Vanagon. The only car money I want is money to get a paint job for the van and a new engine.
If you think I'm in the SCM business for the money you are mistaken. Sure, I want money as much as the next guy but I've learned you don't need insane amounts of money to be happy. In fact, if your house is paid off, you can happily live the rest of your life on $3M or so. If you were careful and lived someplace cheaper you could do it on less. Buying a porsche != careful.
On the other hand, the mental image of sprinkling shavings while driving might bear some thought. I don't think a porsche is the answer, I think you'd want something like an old beat up yellow schoolbus. Then you bolt down the machines to the floor, open the back door, get the wife to drive, and the shavings will just naturally fly out the door into the porsche which is trying to pass us.
"A joke, son, I say, I say, I say, a joke. Are you listening to me, son?"
An Interview with Tom Lord of Arch (O'ReillyNet) Posted Mar 2, 2013 15:29 UTC (Sat) by zenaan (subscriber, #3778) [Link]
> Just to set the record straight, Zenaan apparently had made it clear
> that it was his goal to lift technology from BitKeeper and put it > into arch.
Just to set the record straight Larry, I had no intention of doing so.
> The links he posted seem to support that.
Your "seemings" appeared to be based on your mild (or not so?)
Not being a C programmer, my support of arch/tla was in the way of
> I wasn't involved in the sales discussion but I approve of the
In hindsight, perhaps you are able to reconsider..
> He was looking at a very small number of seats. If you were
Perhaps you might have suggested that your staff simply directly ask
Of course, asking such a question directly would have exposed you/BM
All old history now ...
> We have no problem doing business with people in the open source
Perhaps, in light of the above, you might re-assess your approach to
> I understand you all want everything to be free, I want a porsche. In
Conflating freedom with finance? Surely you knew better?
> both cases, we have to earn it.
Freedom too must be earnt..
Sincerely
An Interview with Tom Lord of Arch (O'ReillyNet) Posted Mar 2, 2013 20:28 UTC (Sat) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Um... you know you're replying to something almost nine years old, right? It's vanishingly unlikely that Larry will ever see it.
An Interview with Tom Lord of Arch (O'ReillyNet) Posted Mar 3, 2013 20:20 UTC (Sun) by jubal (subscriber, #67202) [Link]
That is true, on the other hand, it would be interesting to know what does McVoy think now about the whole bitkeeper fiasco and the mess that he created and that gave us git, mercurial, monotone, bazaar and other versioning systems :-)
An Interview with Tom Lord of Arch (O'ReillyNet) Posted Mar 4, 2013 15:26 UTC (Mon) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Well, BitMover still seems to exist, and has testimonials from successful stars of the IT industry such as, uh, HP on their front page, so I guess it's not been completely outcompeted by Git yet. A tad surprising.
An Interview with Tom Lord of Arch (O'ReillyNet) Posted Mar 4, 2013 23:10 UTC (Mon) by jubal (subscriber, #67202) [Link]
I guess it's still much less painful than ClearCase or Synergy…
An Interview with Tom Lord of Arch (O'ReillyNet) Posted Mar 4, 2013 23:18 UTC (Mon) by jubal (subscriber, #67202) [Link] BTW, if the Wayback Machine is to be believed, the customer list has not changed much since 2007…
An Interview with Tom Lord of Arch (O'ReillyNet) Posted Mar 4, 2013 8:01 UTC (Mon) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]
True, but it was interesting to have that old thread yanked out of the past and put under our noses again. Nice to re-read it. :)
|
|||||||||||||