Um, excuse me, but I simply refuse to allow good people to be called "bad apples" because they refuse to use closed-source software.
Well, IANLMcV, but IMHO he called "bad apples" those who instead of refusing to use the software, decided to break the license.
Now, I know "bad apple" sounds like name calling, but how would you define a community member that breaks a license?
The history of the BitKeeper "free" license is impressive: from almost OSI approved (source code provided, you must just keep the logging feature), to closed binary, to "don't work against us"... every change was the answer to somebody that didn't respect the previous license version.
So I really think that if nobody had broken the license[s], we would not be at this point now. And the whole community could still benefit from a "mostly free" BitKeeper (remember, the 1st license was almost OSI approved, you really had all the code!).
Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds