Bruce Perens Tells Linus Torvalds To Cool It 825
Eh-Wire writes "Bruce Perens has weighed in on the controversy surrounding Andrew Trigdell's attempt to 'reverse engineer' the proprietary Bitkeeper code management software of Larry McVoy and the ensuing fallout with Linus Torvalds. Not only does he tell Linus Trovalds to 'Cool it!' he also suggests, 'Larry sees conspiracies that don't exist.' Sounds like Bruce is a bit worked up about this."
Re:So... (Score:5, Informative)
2. As far as I can tell, Tridge wasn't intent on breaking any deal between Linus and McVoy.
3. Tridge never used BitKeeper's free client, so he did not agree to the license. He can't fail to "uphold his side of the deal", because he never made a deal.
Linus is hypocritically attacking someone for reverse-engineering his friend's protocol, when he does not criticize others for doing the same to other protocols. Tridgell has done some great work, and he deserves better.
Torvalds takes a quick shot at Slashdot too (Score:1, Informative)
Re:So... (Score:2, Informative)
That is total b.s. You are creating a straw man. Many, many, people did not support Linus's ridiculous decision to use Bitkeeper. Trigdell was just doing the same thing he did with Samba - reverse engineering the proprietary protocol of a morally bankrupt company. By reversing BK, the Linux kernel development community would no longer have to be victims. Proprietary protocols and software are counter to the goals of the open source community.
Re:Reverse Engineering (Score:2, Informative)
Re:So... (Score:5, Informative)
Here's a relevant extract:
Tridge's tool would have been useful
if that usage had been sanctioned by BitMover. But since
that tool ends up invalidating your right to use BK in
the first place, and since that tool can not replace
what BK did, then yes, the tool is pointless.
So you have three choices
- don't use the tool (which makes it useless)
- use the tool, but stop using BK (which makes it useless)
- use the tool _and_ use BK, which violates the BK
license
Two useless cases, and one outright license violation.
Now, let's look at a _constructive_ case: let's say that
Tridge had written a really good SCM. Now the choice would
be:
- use the tool (cool, that works)
- use BK (cool, that also works)
and everybody would be happy. If a developer wanted to
switch to Tridges hypothetical tool, BK comes with the
stuff needed to export your own data.
See? Open Office and Samba are both in that "happy" case.
You can use them and be happy. They are _useful_ tools.
They actually _replace_ the tool they were meant to replace,
rather than just hook into it in ways that are against
the license.
Do not assume I represent any side of the argument. I just thought you people should know his rationale.
Re:Linus / BM shares? (Score:4, Informative)
Nothing in that can break the licence, as Tridge never agreed to it.
Oh, and by the way, you've violated my Slashdot posting licence; as per the terms of the licence, you owe me $10,000.
Re:Too harsh. (Score:3, Informative)
IIRC, Larry McVoy is one of the original 100 Linux kernel developers from the early 90s. I don't think it's fair to characterize him as a freeloader who is riding the coat tails of the Linux kernel.
Re:So... (Score:2, Informative)
'Tridge wanted to create a tool that checked out BK trees
for people who didn't sign the license. But it still
needed BK to actually do anything useful - since it would
not actually do the work that BK did.
"Hey, that's a useful helper". Yes, except when it isn't.
And it isn't, if releasing it just causes the BK protocols
to change, and people who used BK in the first place to
have to stop using it, and when using the tool against a
BK repository is a violation of the license that the BK
user agreed to.'
I wish people would read Linus' comment that I have linked to. He makes is point very cleary there. I really don't need to add anything to that. To avoid linking to some more comments of his, people would not read those either, I clarify: Keep in mind that to reverse engineer BK, one would HAVE to violate the license with BM. Now, once that was getting violated, BM had full authority to refuse to license it anymore.
The entire discussion thread where Linus explains himself is here: http://www.realworldtech.com/forums/index.cfm?act
Re:Difference between Samba and Bitkeeper situatio (Score:4, Informative)
IIRC, the educational license has a clause like that for devstudio.
This is about the *project*, not morality (Score:5, Informative)
Linus is right in what he said. He may look like an idiot right now, but he isn't. Please read his posts (cited below), and don't believe hearsay.
He said this episode is damaging to the Linux kernel *project*, because he took advantage of, and depended on, BK's *functionality*, not BK per se. He said there isn't any other app (open or closed) that offers that functionality, and that he would rather write a new one himself.
[...] It's unquestionably true that BitKeeper has advanced the state of SCM technology. Anybody who argues against that just doesn't know what the hell he is talking about. But I'd have loved even an "almost-as-good" open source SCM, because that would obviously just be a good idea.
[...]
Now, I'm dealing with the fall-out, and I'll write my own kernel source tracking tool because I can't use the best any more. That's ok - I deal with my own problems, thank you very much. But what I find sad is how some people are so _gleeful_ about a commercial program becoming less useful, only because it was commerical.
If BK was a crappy tool, I'd at least understand the glee. But in this case it was the commercial people who did the impressive technology and pushed technology forward. And I'm just honest enough to be able to say that.
http://www.realworldtech.com/forums/index.cfm?acti on=detail&PostNum=3322&Thread=2&entryID=49312&room ID=11 [realworldtech.com]
So: true support for totally distributed development (replication doesn't count), performance, and trust. Nothing else matters. And BK does those better than anything else I've seen. ;)
(Well, at least I hope those are the only three things that matter. The quick-hack framework I'm putting together bases its entire design on just those three things, and maybe I'll find out that I'm wrong, and that there are three other things that I just took for granted
http://www.realworldtech.com/forums/index.cfm?acti on=detail&PostNum=3322&Thread=5&entryID=49321&room ID=11 [realworldtech.com]
He said he doesn't believe in the open-or-nothing 'solution'.
So I think open source tends to become technically better over time (but it does take time), but I don't think it's a moral imperative. I do open source because it's fun, and because I think it makes sense in the long run.
For some reason that is hard for a lot of free software people to accept. Too many people see things as a war of "free software" against "proprietary evil". This is, btw, the real difference between the "open source" crowd and the "free software" crowd, as far as I'm concerned.
http://www.realworldtech.com/forums/index.cfm?acti on=detail&PostNum=3322&Thread=2&entryID=49312&room ID=11 [realworldtech.com]
He did NOT say Tridgell didn't have a right to do what he did. He said Tridgell's goal was not to develop an alternative to BK right now (and therefore his current work wasn't a solution to his dependence 'problem'), and now the *project* is going to suffer.
But that's not what Tridge did. He didn't write a "better SCM than BK". He didn't even try - it wasn't his goal. He just wanted to see what the protocols and data was, without actually producing any replacement for the (inevitable) problems he caused and knew about.
He didn't create something new and impressive. He just tore down something new (and impressive) because he could, and rather than helping others, he screwed people over. And you expect me to _respect_ that kind of behaviour?
Re:Good question... (Score:3, Informative)
"The Register" [theregister.co.uk] is a UK-based company, and therefore doesn't have to deal with US trademark law (for the most part). The link above is their trademark application with the UK trademark office.
According to the FAQ [patent.gov.uk], the use of "TM" in the UK is acceptable without having registered the trademark with the registrar. And according to the Trade Marks Act 1994 [hmso.gov.uk], it is illegal to use the "Registered" trade mark symbol (the R with a circle) unless it is, in fact, registered.
So The Register is officially allowed to use the "registered" symbol based on their trademarked status. And of course it makes for a great double entendre when used at the end of an article.
So no, you're not daft. But now you're probably a bit better informed.
You skipped the point. (Score:5, Informative)
they were not "about as good". there is an enourmous different between taking 20-30 seconds to process a patchset and taking ONE HOUR doing it.
Re:This is about the *project*, not morality (Score:5, Informative)
Of course if you had bothered to go to the other site where he had actually posted you might realize he had considered those things. And even explained some more things you (and a heck of a lot of other posters) obviously don't have a clue about.
But, you (and others) have already made up your mind so more information doesn't really matter....
Re:Did you actually read Linus' reply? (Score:2, Informative)
Indeed so. I recently read a book called "Implimenting CIFS - The common internet file system" (Prentice-Hall, Christopher R Hertel) which I heartily recommend btw - its an entertaining and informative read - and a common thread though both his text and several contributions from other people is the almost complete of documentation about the protocol - which is pretty much a defacto MS standard, and subject to change at any point MS thinks is a good idea. MS have recently released an "official" spec for CIFS - and not surprisingly, the team that developed CIFS.NET had to go look at the samba source to figure out some of the areas where the documented protocol seemed to fall short of reality....
Actually I rather wish Samba were ported to Windows as well -- there's features in it that are useful on any platform.
might want to look at these Java [samba.org] and Dot Net [novotny.org] projects then - libraries that add either new or additional functionality, based on samba code.
Re:My Two Cents Worth (Score:3, Informative)
Bruce
Re:Of course he wanted to replace it! (Score:2, Informative)
Anyone else would be free to examine the traffic, as you say.