Letters to the editor

BitKeeper License

Hello,

lwn.net had a long time the letters to the editor section.
Nowadays it seems to be gone, but the discussion around the
BitKeeper license is worth my first letter to the editor.

I tried today, 6 October 2002, to download the BitKeeper software
from the BitKeeper website. The download page contains a link to
the license, so I read

http://www.bitkeeper.com/Sales.Licensing.Free.html

The headline says "Free Use License" but right below it is called
BitKeeper License version 1.37 02/18/02. The definition section
clarifies: It is the BitKeeper license. But I couldn't find the
clause, which triggered all the discussion on the Linux kernel
mailing list.

Using the download link I had to fill an "Are you a sales
opportunity?" mask. The email response had a quite simple user
name and password. Annoying, next step: Calling the URL from the
E-Mail and entering the simple user name and password. There BKL
1.37 is printed again, this time without the "Free Use License"
header. I still couldn't find the now infamous clause. I
downloaded the binary 2.1.6-pre5 binary for Linux and glibc-2.2.

The binary creates a directory full of other binaries, including
GNU diffutils and GNU patch. The GNU source code is available
under ftp.bitmover.com. There is no file with license in its name.
I found the license with grep in the bkhelp.txt file. This is a
verbatim copy from the file:

	bk bkl(1)            BitKeeper User's Manual            bk bkl(1)

	NAME
	bk bkl - BitKeeper License version 1.37, 02/18/02

	LICENSE
			BitKeeper License version 1.38, 03/28/02

The name says 1.37 and the license says it is 1.38. I assume
that's indeed 1.38, because the discussion-triggering clause is
there. A simpler way to display it, is

$ bk help bkl

Tell me now under which terms I've licensed BitKeeper 1.37 or
1.38? I don't know, I'm not a lawyer. But at least I've now an
explanation, why it took six month until the posting on the linux
kernel mailing list. Anyway for a company selling configuration management
tools, this is quite a mess.

I repeat here the discussed clause from the BitKeeper license
version 1.38 from 03/28/02 from section 3 LICENSE OBLIGATIONS:

       (d)  Notwithstanding any other terms in this License, this
            License is not available to You if  You  and/or  your
            employer  develop,  produce,  sell,  and/or  resell a
            product which contains substantially similar capabil-
            ities  of  the BitKeeper Software, or, in the reason-
            able opinion of BitMover, competes with the BitKeeper
            Software.

This is quite straight, this license takes away freedom from you.
For an open-source developer that means you can't use BitKeeper
free of charge if you want to build a "technical" better source
repository tool. According to the language you wouldn't even be
able to improve GNU diffutils and patch, if you use BitKeeper.
Both packages contain of course substantially similar
capabilities.

Larry McVoy isn't better than Disney. He build upon work of others
(diffutils and patch), but doesn't allow others to build upon his
own work. Linus gave Lary the incredible marketing position of
managing the Linux kernel sources with his proprietary tool. Larry
paid a price by providing BK free of charge and the T1 file for
the open logging server, which it is his tool to enforce the
license. I don't understand why the Linux kernel developers didn't
require Larry to negotiate any license change with them. Obviously
the GNU Public License doesn't protect you from political
blindness.

There is no problem, using non-open-source tools to develop open
source or free software---it happens all the time: think about Java
open source tools. Even Microsoft doesn't prevent the Mono
developers to use the C# SDK, free of charge, to develop a
competing open-source implementation.

I don't have the power to stop kernel developers to use a tool,
that limits the freedom of developers. But I've removed BitKeeper
from my computer and I will stay with CVS until a better tool with
a GPL or BSD style license will become available.
I've had a look at the alternatives, Arch looks very promising and
Subversion has a far to complicated architecture.

The most simple thing about the whole story, is the
prediction about the future. I can't remember exactly, because
nowadays it seems to be in a galaxy far, far away: Linus said
once, that if Motif doesn't become open source, it will be
history. Exchange Motif with BitKeeper and you will have a clear
view on the events to come.

Uli Kunitz

-- 
Ulrich Kunitz (ulrich.kunitz@freenet.de)

Comments (3 posted)

BitKeeper license

Dear LWN Editors,

I trust you are aware of the recent discussion around the BitKeeper
license on the kernel mailing list[1].  (Also see the thread[2] on
debian-devel.)  Tom Gall noticed that the gratis BitKeeper license has
the following clause in Section 3:

    (d) Notwithstanding any other terms in this License, this
        License is not available to You if You and/or your
        employer develop, produce, sell, and/or resell a
        product which contains substantially similar capabil-
        ities of the BitKeeper Software, or, in the reason-
        able opinion of BitMover, competes with the BitKeeper
        Software.

Larry McVoy has specifically stated[3] that Ben Collins (a developer
of Subversion, a replacement for CVS, and also a part-time kernel
developer) has no gratis license for BitKeeper as a result of this
clause.  Elsewhere in the thread, he asserted[4] that if certain
(planned[5]) features were added to the kernel, the gratis license
would terminate (and, therefore, all kernel developers using BK would
have to scramble to find alternatives).  In light of these
developments, I hope that you will reconsider your position from 1999:
In a front page article, you suggested[6] that the restrictions in the
BK license were not very severe:

    The interesting thing is that, on a list for kernel hackers who
    intend to use the system, nobody really cares all that much. Even
    members of the OSI board have posted there, saying that the
    license is a good one, and that the lack of the "Open Source"
    designation should not be a problem. BitKeeper is free enough for
    that crowd, and they tend to be pretty fussy on these things.

The license has changed since you wrote this; in particular, the
clause above was apparently added about 6 months ago.  However, there
is another clause in the BK license requiring you to use the latest
version of the license.  Here we see that BitKeeper is, in fact, quite
far from open source or free software: The non-free terms of the
license are being used to exert leverage, in exactly the same way that
(say) Microsoft exerts pressure on OEMs.

Larry McVoy and the BitMover corporation are, of course, free to
license BitKeeper however they want.  But I would urge free software
developers to think carefully before relying on the tools of a vendor
that is so willing to change their license terms to satisfy personal
aims.

Sincerely yours,
	Dylan Thurston

[1] http://www.uwsg.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0210.0/1496.html
[2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2002/debian-devel-200210/msg00245.html
    (Oddly, the original message from Branden Robinson seems to be
    missing from the archive.)
[3] http://www.uwsg.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0210.0/1725.html
[4] http://www.uwsg.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0210.0/2096.html
[5] http://www.uwsg.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0210.0/2133.html
[6] http://old.lwn.net/1999/features/BitKeeper.php3

(Please feel free to include this on the Letters to the Editor page.)

Comments (none posted)

Apache 2.0 and Red Hat

I know there's a lag between writing an article and its publication, but
Apache 2.0 _is_ the default Web server for Red Hat.

In version 8.0, released this past week. (You can see that at
http://www.redhat.com/software/linux/technical/packages.html) That
information was long available via the public beta releases.

Your article also mischaracterizes the Apache development process:
although the current version is 2.0.43, the first 'production' version
in the 2.0 series was 2.0.35. Everything prior to that was a beta, as is
documented at http://www.apacheweek.com/features/ap2

I suspect that the API has been quite stable since 2.0.35 was released
in April of this year, though I'll admit to not having verified this. 
To characterize the Apache release process as having 30 incremental
releases is to misunderstand the open-source development process as it
applies to Apache. Surely you wouldn't claim that the Linux 2.4.2 kernel
was the 63rd incremental release of the system? (There were 51 patches
in the Linux 2.3.x development series, plus 9 patches at the 2.3.99
level.) 

As far as the performance of Apache goes, it's true that Apache
1.3's primary concern was stability, not performance. But, as a
consultant and system administrator, I've found few instances where
the performance of the Web server was the bottleneck. (More often,
it's poorly-architected dynamic content that can be accelerated via
a code rewrite or mod_perl.)

None of the production environments I work in have upgraded to Apache
2.0. Why not? Because what isn't broken, and what isn't a performance
bottleneck, doesn't get replaced. This is not, as the article suggests,
a failing of Apache 2.0 but a mark of Apache 1.3's success.

I look forward to using Apache 2.0, either when it comes preinstalled
on a system I am using, or when I develop a site that needs its power.
Until then, as both a Web developer and a Unix systems administrator,
I'm satisfied with Apache 1.3.

Jon Lasser
-- 
Jon Lasser	
Home: jon@lasser.org		|    Work:jon@cluestickconsulting.com
http://www.tux.org/~lasser/     |    http://www.cluestickconsulting.com
   Buy my book, _Think_Unix_! http://www.tux.org/~lasser/think-unix/

Comments (none posted)

Consumer's Rights

I wanted to thank Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren in her attempt to balance
the interests of copyright holders and consumers.  To that affect I have
written her the following letter and I am seeking some feedback from the
readers of LWN as to their thoughts on the issue.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Congresswoman Lofgren,

	I want to thank you for addressing the issue of Consumer's Rights.  I
live in Sacramento so I cannot actually vote for you but if I could you
would have my vote for sure.  I believe that the Internet -- including
the content that is transmitted by it -- has the largest potential to
transform the world as any invention since Johannes Gutenberg's printing
press.  I'm not talking about transmitting a copy of a song to a million
of my closest friends but about transmitting a copy of a song from my
home file server to my home entertainment system or my office PC for my
personal enjoyment.  I'm talking about information not falling into the
void because the applications that are needed to access it have become
obsolete.  I'm talking about politicians being able to publish something
that can be easily accessed by those intended -- all of us (most
importantly their constituents).  The ability to obtain tools that can
transform information from one format to another so that everyone (who
is legally authorized) can listen, view, or read it.

	I will be writing my representatives to encourage them to support this
legislation.  Again I would like to thank you for your courage in
introducing this legislation in the face of opposition from
organizations such as the MPAA and the RIAA.

	I would like to put the seed of another thought into your head if at
all possible:  the distinction between the cost of the media and the
cost of the Intellectual Property that it contains.  Perhaps this seed
could flourish and grow into a future piece of legislation.  I, like
many millions of other Americans, own both a VCR and a DVD player.  I
have purchased a number of movies on VHS tapes and some of them I have
also purchased on DVDs.  I have paid for both the tape of a movie and a
DVD of the same movie.  I can understand paying twice for the media
since I have both a tape and a DVD but I have been forced to purchase
the same Intellectual Property twice!  That doesn't seem right to me. 
The same thing happened when I replaced many of my old phonograph
records with CDs: I had to repurchase the Intellectual Property that I
had already purchased once before.  This is going to be happening again
soon as a new medium for home audio recordings will be coming out soon: 
DVD audio.  My right of 'first sale' would enable me to sell the older
works at a second hand store and recoup some of the expense but, as the
old formats are being phased out, demand for them is light and therefore
my return will be small.

	A final thought for you in your pursuit for consumer rights might be
the right not to have equipment become obsolete after a very short
time.  I bring this to your attention as it relates to the 'broadcast
flag' that the content creators wish to incorporate into digital TVs and
the audio/video content that they will be presenting.  If this becomes
law then EVERY television sold on store shelves at the moment would
instantly become obsolete.  Even the brand new high definition digital
ones that cost thousands of dollars.  If you (as in Congress) wish to
move Americans to a digital TV format you should assure them that their
investment in the technology will last more than a few years.  Budget
forecasts call for the auctioning off of the analog TV electro magnetic
spectrum; if this doesn't happen in a timely fashion then the money from
the auctions will not become available to help balance the budget.  But
why should I (and other Americans) go out and spend money on new
equipment when the standard has not even been finalized yet?  The short
answer is I won't and I don't believe a majority of others will either. 
This has created a 'chicken and egg' scenario with the complication of
continuously modifying the chicken's genetic sequence.  Which egg will
hatch into the correct chicken?

	Thank you for your time in reading this and your efforts on behalf of
consumers.


Sincerely yours,

Tres ******
Registered and Active Voter
Sacramento, CA

P.S.	I have included the text of this email in my correspondence with my
Senators and Representative.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Regards,
Tres

Comments (none posted)

Page editor: Jonathan Corbet