| Weekly edition | Kernel | Security | Distributions | Search |
| Archives | Calendar | Subscribe | Write for LWN | LWN.net FAQ |
Mercurial loses a developer
Mercurial loses a developer
Posted Oct 1, 2005 0:34 UTC (Sat) by arcticwolf (guest, #8341)Parent article: Mercurial loses a developer
What, a supplier tells a *customer* what they can and cannot do? Isn't it usually the other way around?
Not that this kind of behaviour is a surprise considering who it's coming from, of course, but I *am* surprised that Bryan gave in to it.
It's probably a good thing that despite Matt Mackall's lobbying for Mercurial on lkml, kernel development has continued with git.
(Log in to post comments)
Mercurial loses a developer
Posted Oct 1, 2005 0:49 UTC (Sat) by jake (editor, #205) [Link]
> It's probably a good thing that despite Matt Mackall's lobbying for Mercurial on lkml, kernel development has continued with git.
I don't know why you would think that BitMover wouldn't make the same phone call to the employer of any git developer who used BitKeeper at work as well ... it doesn't seem like a Mercurial specific problem to me ...
jake
Mercurial loses a developer
Posted Oct 1, 2005 1:48 UTC (Sat) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
Although none of this makes any sense to me.. Why would simply using software from one source be a commercial risk if a person develops a different product on the side?
It doesn't make sense.
Although after pausing and coming back this little tidbit is interesting:
"To avoid any possible perception of conflict, I have volunteered to
Larry that as long as I continue to use the commercial version of
BitKeeper, I will not contribute to the development of Mercurial."
Maybe he's hinting at that maybe they won't be using the commercial version of bittkeeper for much longer?? I hope so.
After reading this I wouldn't want to touch bitkeeper with a ten foot pole.
Not for Long
Posted Oct 1, 2005 5:33 UTC (Sat) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link]
I think drag has hit it. Nobody likes to be pushed around by one's software vendor. Mr. O'Sullivan himself might be switching his employer to a system that doesn't subject them to threatening phone calls. It makes me wonder, though, if his employer doesn't just resent his moonlighting on a Free Software project. Or maybe Mr. O'Sullivan doesn't plan to stay long with an employer so willing to be pushed around by its vendors. Perhaps he has found work helping users of other systems migrate to more modern ones and away from legally hazardous ones.Donning the tinfoil hat for a moment, I wonder if this isn't all a puckish game cooked up by Linus and Larry to provoke people. Larry doesn't need the money, and he actually does have (or once had) a sense of humor.
Not for Long
Posted Oct 2, 2005 2:32 UTC (Sun) by huffd (guest, #10382) [Link]
Donning the tinfoil hat for a moment, I wonder if this isn't all a puckish game cooked up by Linus and Larry to provoke people.Amazing, that itch I get behind my left ear just before I discover a new conspiracy, kicked into overdrive just moments before reading the above quote. I'll withhold my thoughts on this for now, but you'd be correct in a different timeframe, say a few years ago. Given the outcome of recent events it gets harder and harder to put it past either one of them.
Not for Long
Posted Oct 2, 2005 22:09 UTC (Sun) by aya (guest, #19767) [Link]
Sorry, what does Linus stand to gain from Larry's pissing people off?
What Linus stands to gain
Posted Oct 5, 2005 5:49 UTC (Wed) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link]
Amusement value, mostly. Walk the plank, landlubbers! Etcetera, arrr.
Mercurial loses a developer
Posted Oct 1, 2005 1:23 UTC (Sat) by TwoTimeGrime (guest, #11688) [Link]
> What, a supplier tells a *customer* what they can and cannot do? Isn't it> usually the other way around?
Read the EULAs for your software at work lately?
Interesting question
Posted Oct 1, 2005 5:22 UTC (Sat) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link]
Which brings me to the interesting question of who is agreeing to EULAs on company software installed on company equipment. The company, the employee, or both?
I've recently decided to stay away from crappy EULAs, which is most of them, since they have been enforced against me. However I had assumed by employer's software was their own problem.
Do I now have to argue with my manager, the IT staff, and possibly lose my job if I don't want to "sign" away my rights by installing something at work?
Interesting question
Posted Oct 1, 2005 5:54 UTC (Sat) by Duncan (guest, #6647) [Link]
Well, pretty much, yes. The employer makes the pledge on behalf of thoseworking for it. In many cases, agreeing to abide by company policy, which
would include company policy regarding software they've signed EULAS for,
would be part of the employment contract/agreement. Even where it isn't,
the employer then has the choice of keeping the violating employee, or
continuing to use the software (and abiding by any clauses that survive
the termination of use of said software, no-compete clauses for a year or
whatever), or being sued. Guess which choice the employer is likely to
take?
Now, Larry McV has a reputation for taking this rather farther than at
least most in the FLOSS community can stomach, farther than other software
might, but regardless, one in that situation must be prepared to choose
between keeping their current job and keeping their current hobby, as
history HAS demonstrated that Larry is rather active in pursuing such
"violations" of his "license", and no company yet has been willing to
stand upto it and see who wins if it goes to court. (OSDL went farther
than others have, by refusing to kill Tridge's contract, but they ended up
losing the use of BitKeeper in the process. IMO, while the use of
BitKeeper did advance the kernel for a time, given Larry McV's attitude
vs. that of many kernel contributors, it had to happen some time, and when
it happened was as good a time as any. Glad the separation is over with
now!)
I think there are a lot in the community that wouldn't touch BK now, or
work for a company that did. That may or may not be BM's loss, but it's
certainly due to BM's attitude. Larry's obviously gambling that this
policy will be effective enough in keeping the FLOSS competition behind
him that it'll outweigh any loss from businesses choosing coders over his
product. Regardless of whether one believes in the inalienable rights of
Free Software or not, one must admit that as with other proprietary
software companies, the law is currently on Larry's side, giving him the
legal right to make those demands in exchange for use of his product,
regardless of whether he has the moral right to do so or not (given the
arguably inalienable rights of Free Software).
Duncan
Interesting question
Posted Oct 1, 2005 6:53 UTC (Sat) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link]
It seems you are assuming there is a company policy on EULAs. The extent of that policy is that the legal department has to approve of software licenses before purchase. It doesn't say anything about the employee acting for themselves or as an agent of the company. If I had to agree to MS EULAs personally I'd be put in a very difficult position. I don't want to quit my job and trying to fight something like the requirement to run Windows due to licensing terms is pointless (and I even work for a MS competitor) and would look completely silly.
Mercurial loses a developer
Posted Oct 1, 2005 3:02 UTC (Sat) by rknop (guest, #66) [Link]
If the world had been like this 20 years ago, there'd be no GNU or Linux today. After all, RMS started writing replacement tools for Unix more than 10 years before Linux came on the scene, all the while using the proprietary operating systems that he eventually intended to make obselete. And when Linux came on the scene, it had that long history of GNU tools to lean in to make a fully functional free operating system.
If the Unix vendors at the time had a sense of what was coming, they'd probably have pulled a Larry.
-Rob