Re: [Gnu-arch-users] hmmm.

[Miles Egan]

Tom Lord wrote:

>    > It's really too bad this relationship has deteriorated so far.
>
>
> I both agree and disagree.
>
> Second, I disagree because I think that deterioration of "this
> relationship" is structurally inevitable.
I suspect you're right that this kind of conflict was inevitable, or at 
least very likely, given the nature of the arrangement
between BitMover and the kernel developers.  It's still disturbing to 
see such acrimony over such a fundamental
element of kernel development.

>         4) Some groups started working on cloning BK.  LM told them to
>           give up.  He threatened to modify the network protocols in
>           such a way as to make cloning impractical without examining
>           BK in operation -- an action that LM asserted would be
>           illegal and that he would take legal action against.
This seemed to me like a real red flag as well.  The kernel team has 
placed a tremendous amount
of trust in BitMover's good will and intentions.  This calls those 
intentions into question.

> The privilege of being a patron to the kernel developer community does
> not buy one the right to be tyranical.  "Tyranical patronage" is an
> oxymoron.  Tyranny or patronage, LM, which is it going to be?  (And
> don't the BitMover business model, BK software architecture, and BK
> gratis license already determine the answer?)
Of course.  Once again it seems like RMS's early vocal opposition, as 
usual labeled by many as
overreactive and paranoid, seems very prescient.  It seems that the 
lesson that truly free software can
depend only on truly free tools needs to be re-learned occasionally.

I'm already cringing in anticipation at the blowup that will follow 
Microsoft's first crackdown on Mono, but
that's certainly very OT for this list.

miles