Re: Listmaster request: Do not blacklist rms@gnu.org

[Justin Guyett <justin@soze.net>]

At 2002-10-22 17:42 +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 01:24:48PM -0400, James Blackwell wrote:
> > The point I was making was that you and Richard Stallman do not
> > have the same goal in mind. His goal is to alleviate what he
> > percieves as an ill in society. Your goal is to run a business.
> > You have stated so yourself. 
> 
> Well, Richards goal is to force his ideology on everyone.  Larry's
> goal in lkml context is to help to reduce Linus' load, in the
> context of his business, Bitkeeper it's probably to make money - at
> least enough for him and his employees to live.

I don't think so.  Richard's goal seems to be to attempt to convince
everyone his ideology is good.  He doesn't appear to be trying to
force anyone to do anything.  If you don't like his free software
concept, you don't have to GPL your code.

Larry, however, is forcing developers off of a BM-hosted project
simply because one of their hobbies is in competition with his
company, and has explicitly rejected granting limited license to such
people for the sole purpose of developing for BM-hosted projects.
Larry also has the potential to significantly influence kernel
development by threatening withdrawal of BM hosting if the kernel
incorporates "competing" features.  Larry hides behind the excuse
that (e.g. subversion) developers would get a feel for BK operation
and implement competing features in subversion, ignoring that those
developers probably understand most of the significant BK features
already.  Then he rants about how nobody would do the work BM is
doing without pay, and carefully avoids connecting that argument to
his rationale for disallowing competing developers use of BK
exclusively for BM-hosted projects.

I'm sick of Larry, and I bet he's sick of me, but this BK mess is bad
mojo.

And so is posting to this flamewar.

-- 
When faced with the prisoner's dilemma, kill your accomplice.