[Sussex] Bitkeeper threaten OSS community

[Geoff Teale]

Chaps,

Some of you will be aware that for some time now Kernel source control has 
been done in BitKeeper  - a proprietary piece of software.  RMS has never 
been happy about this, but as he is not "in charge" of anything to do with 
the kernel (other than its license) this situation has persisted.  However, 
bitkeeper has caught wind of recent efforts to produce an OpenSource 
alternative to their product and they are not happy.  They are effectively 
threatening to ensure that it is not easy for the kernel source (or any other 
project using bitkeeper) to be moved away from their product by adopting the 
tactic of constant change and signature checking.  

I can see why they might do this to protect their business, but specific 
threats have been made about the kernel tree and this _cannot_ be tollerated.  
Linux is a big thing for BitKeeper because it is the single best piece of 
marketing they have _ "Our proprietary software is so good, even the open 
source community rely on it".

RMS is correctly pointing out that if a free software solution is produced 
that is compatible with the current verison of bitkeeper is produced and the 
kernel tree is not upgraded to any new version of Bitkeeper than the 
community can effectively avoid this threat (though there is a lot of work to 
be done in order to replace bitkeeper).  One further threat remains in the 
mean time - BitKeeper are likely to discontinue their free-licence for 
non-commercial use scheme and effectively make it hard for people to work on 
the current kernel tree without buying a license.

One way or another this will be resolved, and it looks like BitKeeper won't be 
a part of the future solution.

Any thoughts?
-- 
GJT
Free Software Foundation
tealeg at member.fsf.org