April 8, 2005 1:34 PM PDT

Torvalds looking for new Linux home

(continued from previous page)

the system for free. But that led to efforts to reproduce its abilities, which McVoy spurned. On Wednesday, BitMover announced it will discontinue that free product, instead offering only an open-source alternative that's not powerful enough to support all Linux programmers.

"This is not an attempt to extract money from the open-source community. It's an attempt to protect our intellectual property," McVoy said in an interview. Not that he hasn't considered the value of what his company has offered: In a February posting, McVoy estimated that Linux programmers' use of BitKeeper software would cost at least $65 million per year.

Among those who criticized Torvalds' adoption of BitKeeper was Richard Stallman, the programmer who founded the Free Software Foundation to promote software that's free of such proprietary constraints. In 2002, he suggested creating free software that could interoperate with BitKeeper.

SourcePuller
Recently, Andrew Tridgell, a lead programmer for the open-source Samba project and, like Torvalds, an employee of Open Source Development Labs (OSDL), has begun work to do just that. However, he hasn't publicly released the software, called SourcePuller.

"I did write a tool that is interoperable with BitKeeper," Tridgell said in an interview. "I did not use BitKeeper at all in writing this tool and thus was never subject to the BitKeeper license. I developed the tool in a completely ethical and legal manner."

OSDL hired Tridgell to work full-time on Samba, the consortium said in a statement. "Any other projects he pursues are his own," OSDL said.

That type of work doesn't sit well with McVoy. "All we are trying to do is (1) provide the open-source community with a useful tool, (2) prevent that from turning into the open-source community creating a clone of our tool," he said in a February posting.

BitMover, based in South San Francisco, Calif., and founded in 1998, offered free use of the software for Linux programmers for two reasons, McVoy said: to aid marketing and because he has been Torvalds' friend for more than 10 years.

And Torvalds has said the use of BitKeeper has improved Linux development dramatically. "I'm personally very happy with BK, and with Larry. It didn't work out, but it sure as hell made a big difference to kernel development," Torvalds said Wednesday. "I'm convinced it caused us to do things in better ways, and one of the things I'm looking at is to make sure that those things continue to work."

Previous page
Page 1 | 2

8 comments

Join the conversation!
Add your comment
Torvalds is in error, here.
The ethical thing to do is to stay with BitKeeper until the Linux community has an open-source initiative to competely replace the impetus of BitKeeper in line with their own needs and experience with updating, revising and distributing open-source code.

Torvalds is demonstrating that the open source movement strays towards a 're-write and ignore copyright movement'. Of course, there were many who accused Torvalds of doing just that in the originial Linux implementation.

Of course the Linux crowd can always acuse PutDown of not-knowing what he is talking about, cause he ain't Linux. But I think the facts of this matter speak for themselves. Why did Torvalds allow a non-open source program such high profile in the Linux heirarchy?
Posted by (88 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Torvalds is in error, here.
The ethical thing to do is to stay with BitKeeper until the Linux community has an open-source initiative to competely replace the impetus of BitKeeper in line with their own needs and experience with updating, revising and distributing open-source code.

Torvalds is demonstrating that the open source movement strays towards a 're-write and ignore copyright movement'. Of course, there were many who accused Torvalds of doing just that in the originial Linux implementation.

Of course the Linux crowd can always acuse PutDown of not-knowing what he is talking about, cause he ain't Linux. But I think the facts of this matter speak for themselves. Why did Torvalds allow a non-open source program such high profile in the Linux heirarchy?
Posted by (88 comments )
Reply Link Flag
The Story of the Hare and the Tortoise!
With the move to revert to a less automated system based on e-mailing and threatening to slow the pace of Linux development; perhaps, "economy" wise... with IBM still reluctant to release OS/2 Warp into the open-source community this can see OS/2 gaining ground on both Windows and Linux based on OS/2 being able to take advantage of the availability of the "Eclipse" Architecture presently under development for applications delivery. Lest we forget the story of the "hare" and the "tortoise"!
Posted by (187 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Pipe dream
Better check what you're smoking. OS/2 won't be made "open source" because (among other reasons) part of the source is still the property of Microsoft who wrote it in the first place. IBM has the rights to market and use that software but not necessarily the right to release it to the world as open source.

OS/2 is also so far off of the mainstream map these days that it's hard to conceive of a way for it to return to prominence.
Posted by aabcdefghij987654321 (1721 comments )
Link Flag
The Story of the Hare and the Tortoise!
With the move to revert to a less automated system based on e-mailing and threatening to slow the pace of Linux development; perhaps, "economy" wise... with IBM still reluctant to release OS/2 Warp into the open-source community this can see OS/2 gaining ground on both Windows and Linux based on OS/2 being able to take advantage of the availability of the "Eclipse" Architecture presently under development for applications delivery. Lest we forget the story of the "hare" and the "tortoise"!
Posted by (187 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Pipe dream
Better check what you're smoking. OS/2 won't be made "open source" because (among other reasons) part of the source is still the property of Microsoft who wrote it in the first place. IBM has the rights to market and use that software but not necessarily the right to release it to the world as open source.

OS/2 is also so far off of the mainstream map these days that it's hard to conceive of a way for it to return to prominence.
Posted by aabcdefghij987654321 (1721 comments )
Link Flag
Richard Stallman vindicated by greed
The article has all the points covered why free demos aren't the way to go for the Open Source community.

Free versions that are proprietary can be(and in this case are being) pulled

When someone developed an open source item that works with the proprietary program the $$$$owner admits being mad at the FREEowner

Result: the pulling of the free version

The only "reduction" in productivity should be immediate redirecting of efforts to make an acceptable OPEN SOURCE alternative.

Wish lists should be immediately created and quickly categorized and prioritized. The Open Source Community needs to rally around this immediately.

The $56 million alternative that was mentioned, divided among tens of thousands of developers(also mentioned) would amount to each buying a Microsoft product (estimate range $200 - $600 per person)

THIS IS WHAT OPEN SOURCE IS TRYING TO AVOID

And this can happen ANYTIME one starts to depend on proprietary software no matter what the cost.

The only possible exception would be a low cost item that comes with "lifetime free updates" and even this has the problem that buying a Gizmo version 5.7 might never be upgraded but instead the same company could start selling Gazmo 2.0 with all Gizmo functions and more circumventing any update commitment for the former product..... SO...

Open Source is Open Source and Proprietary is Proprietary and never the twain shall meet!
Posted by qazwiz (208 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Richard Stallman vindicated by greed
The article has all the points covered why free demos aren't the way to go for the Open Source community.

Free versions that are proprietary can be(and in this case are being) pulled

When someone developed an open source item that works with the proprietary program the $$$$owner admits being mad at the FREEowner

Result: the pulling of the free version

The only "reduction" in productivity should be immediate redirecting of efforts to make an acceptable OPEN SOURCE alternative.

Wish lists should be immediately created and quickly categorized and prioritized. The Open Source Community needs to rally around this immediately.

The $56 million alternative that was mentioned, divided among tens of thousands of developers(also mentioned) would amount to each buying a Microsoft product (estimate range $200 - $600 per person)

THIS IS WHAT OPEN SOURCE IS TRYING TO AVOID

And this can happen ANYTIME one starts to depend on proprietary software no matter what the cost.

The only possible exception would be a low cost item that comes with "lifetime free updates" and even this has the problem that buying a Gizmo version 5.7 might never be upgraded but instead the same company could start selling Gazmo 2.0 with all Gizmo functions and more circumventing any update commitment for the former product..... SO...

Open Source is Open Source and Proprietary is Proprietary and never the twain shall meet!
Posted by qazwiz (208 comments )
Reply Link Flag
 

Join the conversation

Add your comment

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Click here to review our Terms of Use.

What's Hot

Discussions

Shared

RSS Feeds

Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.