| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Didn't once, does nowDidn't once, does nowPosted Oct 1, 2005 8:09 UTC (Sat) by ncm (subscriber, #165)In reply to: Mercurial loses a developer by nurhussein Parent article: Mercurial loses a developer Larry is infamous for changing license terms after the fact. He used to say that if you wanted to work on the competition, you needed a paid-up license. Then he said if anybody at the company did, it needed a paid-up license. Then he said he wouldn't sell you one. After he had lots of customers good and locked-in, he started threatening not to renew existing paid-up licenses. That's where we stand now. If it weren't so mean-spirited it might look like a big jape. So, does this make Larry an [expletive deleted], and his customers idiots for tolerating it, as huaz suggests? I guess that's up to each of us to decide.
(Log in to post comments)
Didn't once, does now Posted Oct 1, 2005 12:36 UTC (Sat) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link] Thank you, Linus, for helping to inflict Larry on the world. It's not as if we didn't tell you...Nobody would have been working on Mercurial in the first place, if Larry had not been so Mercurial. Well, I sent the engineers in my company a note that bitkeeper isn't safe to touch. Bruce
Didn't once, does now Posted Oct 1, 2005 12:54 UTC (Sat) by maney (subscriber, #12630) [Link] Thank you, Linus, for helping to inflict Larry on the world. It's not as if we didn't tell you...From the Panglossian perspective, it has resulted in a truly great example of the problems that can arise when you're at the mercy of an unethical proprietary software vendor, no?
Didn't once, does now Posted Oct 2, 2005 2:46 UTC (Sun) by huffd (guest, #10382) [Link] From the Panglossian perspective, it has resulted in a truly great example of the problems that can arise when you're at the mercy of an unethical proprietary software vendor, no?Well, yes of course but hindsight shows us there might have been a better incentive than just optimistically helping a friend. Consider this, had public opinion played out a little differently, anyone who worked on the kernel might have had to cough up the money for a license, had the outcry of wrong doing not hit a fever pitch. Linus could have said, fine, it's a great product we aren't changing, we'll pay. Which may have been the plan all along.
Didn't once, does now Posted Oct 2, 2005 16:13 UTC (Sun) by jstAusr (guest, #27224) [Link] > Which may have been the plan all along.
Linus has stated that he doesn't like getting involved in political issues. Turning that into a conspiracy is just ludicrous. I think its just a matter of him thinking that spending time with such efforts adds nothing to producing a proper kernel. You seem to forget that he layed the foundations for git within days after the Bitkeeper problem.
RMS has stated that he doesn't like dealing with political issues but that they are important and someone needs to do it. The truth of the need for his efforts seems to be proved over and over by the likes of SCO, Bitmover and many others.
Linus may not see eye to eye with the goals that RMS has, but I do hope that he will see that it is an effort that just can't be avoided and be glad that RMS is doing it.
|
|
||||||||||||