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)