[Fsf-friends] RMS: BitKeeper bon-voyage is a happy ending

[Anivar]

 RMS: BitKeeper bon-voyage is a happy ending
Monday April 25, 2005 (01:00 PM GMT)
By: Richard M. Stallman
http://software.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=05/04/25/130207

For the first time in my life, I want to thank Larry McVoy. He recently
eliminated a major weakness of the free software community, by
announcing the end of his campaign to entice free software projects to
use and promote his non-free software. Soon, Linux development will no
longer use this program, and no longer spread the message that non-free
software is a good thing if it's convenient.

My gratitude is limited, since it was McVoy that created the problem in
the first place. But I still appreciate his decision to clear it up.

There are thousands of non-free programs, and most merit no special
attention, other than developing a free replacement. What made this
program, BitKeeper, infamous and dangerous was its marketing approach:
inviting high-profile free software projects to use it, so as to attract
other paying users.

McVoy made the program available gratis to free software developers.
This did not mean it was free software for them: they were privileged
not to part with their money, but they still had to part with their
freedom. They gave up the fundamental freedoms that define free
software: freedom to run the program as you wish for any purpose,
freedom to study and change the source code as you wish, freedom to make
and redistribute copies, and freedom to publish modified versions.

The Free Software Movement has said "Think of free speech, not free
beer" for 15 years. McVoy said the opposite; he invited developers to
focus on the lack of monetary price, instead of on freedom. A free
software activist would dismiss this suggestion, but those in our
community who value technical advantage above freedom and community were
susceptible to it.

McVoy's great triumph was the adoption of this program for Linux
development. No free software project is more visible than Linux. It is
the kernel of the GNU/Linux operating system, an essential component,
and users often mistake it for the entire system. As McVoy surely
planned, the use of his program in Linux development was powerful
publicity for it.

It was also, whether intentionally or not, a powerful political PR
campaign, telling the free software community that freedom-denying
software is acceptable as long as it's convenient. If we had taken that
attitude towards Unix in 1984, where would we be today? Nowhere. If we
had accepted using Unix, instead of setting out to replace it, nothing
like the GNU/Linux system would exist.

Of course, the Linux developers had practical reasons for what they did.
I won't argue with those reasons; they surely know what's convenient for
them. But they did not count, or did not value, how this would affect
their freedom -- or the rest of the community's efforts.

A free kernel, even a whole free operating system, is not sufficient to
use your computer in freedom; we need free software for everything else,
too. Free applications, free drivers, free BIOS: some of those projects
face large obstacles -- the need to reverse engineer formats or
protocols or pressure companies to document them, or to work around or
face down patent threats, or to compete with a network effect. Success
will require firmness and determination. A better kernel is desirable,
to be sure, but not at the expense of weakening the impetus to liberate
the rest of the software world.

When the use of his program became controversial, McVoy responded with
distraction. For instance, he promised to release it as free software if
the company went out of business. Alas, that does no good as long as the
company remains in business. Linux developers responded by saying,
"We'll switch to a free program when you develop a better one." This was
an indirect way of saying, "We made the mess, but we won't clean it up."

Fortunately, not everyone in Linux development considered a non-free
program acceptable, and there was continuing pressure for a free
alternative. Finally Andrew Tridgell developed an interoperating free
program, so Linux developers would no longer need to use a non-free program.

McVoy first blustered and threatened, but ultimately chose to go home
and take his ball with him: he withdrew permission for gratis use by
free software projects, and Linux developers will move to other
software. The program they no longer use will remain unethical as long
as it is non-free, but they will no longer promote it, nor by using it
teach others to give freedom low priority. We can begin to forget about
that program.

We should not forget the lesson we have learned from it: Non-free
programs are dangerous to you and to your community. Don't let them get
a place in your life.

Copyright 2005 Richard Stallman. Verbatim copying and distribution of
this entire article are permitted worldwide without royalty in any
medium provided this notice is preserved.