From lm@bitmover.com Fri Mar 15 16:49:42 2002 Return-Path: Received: from jabberwock.ucw.cz (postfix@jabberwock.ucw.cz [212.71.128.53]) by atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian 8.9.3-21) with ESMTP id QAA01066 for ; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 16:49:42 +0100 Received: from bitmover.com (bitmover.com [192.132.92.2]) by jabberwock.ucw.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36674B91F for ; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 16:49:38 +0100 (CET) Received: from work.bitmover.com (work.bitmover.com [10.3.9.1]) by bitmover.com (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id g2FFnKN21458; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 07:49:20 -0800 Received: (from lm@localhost) by work.bitmover.com (8.11.6/8.9.3) id g2FFnSQ12146; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 07:49:28 -0800 Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 07:49:28 -0800 From: Larry McVoy To: Pavel Machek Cc: lm@bitmover.com, rms@gnu.org Subject: Re: bitkeeper: licencing issues Message-Id: <20020315074928.A11940@work.bitmover.com> References: <20020314235734.GA363@elf.ucw.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <20020314235734.GA363@elf.ucw.cz>; from pavel@ucw.cz on Fri, Mar 15, 2002 at 12:57:35AM +0100 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 required=5 tests= Status: RO X-Status: A Content-Length: 521 Lines: 12 When you run the installer it says this: If you want to do the install yourself, enter "none" and we will leave this installation script and the gzipped tar archive in /tmp and you can do any customization you might want (or just see what it is doing). In other words, all the installer amounts to is a binary which when you run it, produces a shell script and a tarball. You only had to read 84 words to have known this. -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm From lm@bitmover.com Mon Mar 18 00:39:48 2002 Return-Path: Received: from jabberwock.ucw.cz (postfix@jabberwock.ucw.cz [212.71.128.53]) by atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian 8.9.3-21) with ESMTP id AAA03858 for ; Mon, 18 Mar 2002 00:39:48 +0100 Received: from bitmover.com (bitmover.com [192.132.92.2]) by jabberwock.ucw.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDC99B923 for ; Mon, 18 Mar 2002 00:39:43 +0100 (CET) Received: from work.bitmover.com (work.bitmover.com [10.3.9.1]) by bitmover.com (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id g2HNdKj16704; Sun, 17 Mar 2002 15:39:20 -0800 Received: (from lm@localhost) by work.bitmover.com (8.11.6/8.9.3) id g2HNdaq20540; Sun, 17 Mar 2002 15:39:36 -0800 Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 15:39:36 -0800 From: Larry McVoy To: Pavel Machek Cc: Larry McVoy , rms@gnu.org Subject: Re: bitkeeper: licencing issues Message-Id: <20020317153936.O10086@work.bitmover.com> References: <20020314235734.GA363@elf.ucw.cz> <20020315074928.A11940@work.bitmover.com> <20020317230420.GB2745@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <20020317230420.GB2745@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>; from pavel@ucw.cz on Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 12:04:20AM +0100 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 required=5 tests= Status: RO X-Status: A Content-Length: 3247 Lines: 64 On Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 12:04:20AM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > When you run the installer it says this: > > > > If you want to do the install yourself, enter "none" and we will leave this > > installation script and the gzipped tar archive in /tmp and you can do any > > customization you might want (or just see what it is doing). > > > > In other words, all the installer amounts to is a binary which when you > > run it, produces a shell script and a tarball. You only had to read 84 > > words to have known this. > > I believe that's irrelevant. [What is relevant is that installer > itself seems to be GPLed, so I might try to compile it myself then cmp > to see if you are doing something evil.] The installer is not GPLed and you obviously don't know what you are talking about. If you are correct then any GPLed program in a tarball automatically makes all other programs in that tarball GPLed. Ditto for a file system. Not even Richard thinks that is true, and the GPL explicitly acknowledges (not that it matters) the fact that licenses can't cross over reasonable boundaries. If you thought instead of flamed, you'd find all sorts of similar cases in the drivers subdir of the linux kernel. There are plenty of examples where the microcode downloaded to cards is #defined in the GPLed driver but is not itself GPLed. Go hassle those people. > 1) I can't easilly see that it will not do anything else. (Mail you my > personal info, mess up disk by accident, overwrite something in /tmp). It's a *tarball* and a *shell script*. Go read the shell script and stop being stupid. And if you had just politely asked for the installer source itself, we would have sent you that. At this point you'll get it when hell freezes over. Let's see. We build an installer that is nothing more than a self extracting archive. We put in the instructions that if you are panoid just tell it that you don't want it to install, just leave the files in /tmp. The installer itself is a shell script. And you complain. If you don't like it, don't use BitKeeper. If you think we're violating the law, sue us. Otherwise you are just pissing into the wind. > There's actually no indication that its distributed under GPL. GPL is > only mentioned 3 times, and you are really not saying anywhere that > diff etc. is GPL-ed. You may not do that. Really? We didn't change any of the messages you are describing so if you think we're violating the GPL, so is the FSF. And anyone else who distributes diff. The GPL requires that we make our changes available in a timely manner. We do, they on our our ftp site, placed there when we do a release. In addition, we offered our changes to the maintainers a long time ago and got told they were fixing it a 'better way' (and still haven't as far as I can tell). You're welcome to the code, I'd love it if the FSF picked up the changes, then we wouldn't have to maintain them. But if you and/or the FSF think that we are violating the GPL, you're welcome to sue BitMover and find out if you're right. Otherwise piss off, you're wasting your own time, my time, and Richard's time. -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm From lm@bitmover.com Mon Mar 18 01:02:47 2002 Return-Path: Received: from jabberwock.ucw.cz (postfix@jabberwock.ucw.cz [212.71.128.53]) by atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian 8.9.3-21) with ESMTP id BAA04789 for ; Mon, 18 Mar 2002 01:02:47 +0100 Received: from bitmover.com (bitmover.com [192.132.92.2]) by jabberwock.ucw.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FA68B923 for ; Mon, 18 Mar 2002 01:02:43 +0100 (CET) Received: from work.bitmover.com (work.bitmover.com [10.3.9.1]) by bitmover.com (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id g2I02Pj04056; Sun, 17 Mar 2002 16:02:25 -0800 Received: (from lm@localhost) by work.bitmover.com (8.11.6/8.9.3) id g2I02fG20633; Sun, 17 Mar 2002 16:02:41 -0800 Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 16:02:41 -0800 From: Larry McVoy To: Pavel Machek Cc: Larry McVoy , rms@gnu.org Subject: Re: bitkeeper: licencing issues Message-Id: <20020317160241.B19630@work.bitmover.com> References: <20020314235734.GA363@elf.ucw.cz> <20020315074928.A11940@work.bitmover.com> <20020317230420.GB2745@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <20020317153936.O10086@work.bitmover.com> <20020317235131.GC3529@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <20020317235131.GC3529@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>; from pavel@ucw.cz on Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 12:51:31AM +0100 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 required=5 tests= Status: RO Content-Length: 1695 Lines: 39 > (c) The subsets of the system known as the MDBM library, > the LEAKS library, and the INSTALLER are also avail- > able under the terms of the GPL. Not anymore, thanks to you. You free software guys need to get a clue. I'm letting you use a $5000/seat chunk of software for free. I'm running a business. Any time that you waste my time, I'll just pull back on what I give you until you stop. So you just lost rights to access that code. Your loss. Keep arguing, there is plenty more to take away. > What I downloaded off your website is not a shellscript. I has ELF > header on it. I can only get shellscript + tarball by running it. Right you are if you don't like it that's too bad for you. Get it through your head that I'm giving you something and you're giving me *nothing*. > > Really? We didn't change any of the messages you are describing so if > > you think we're violating the GPL, so is the FSF. And anyone else who > > distributes diff. > > If FSF is distributting diff binary alone, it is certainly violating > GPL itself. FSF is certainly not doing that. Great, so sue us if that's what you think you should do. > Okay, so sources are available somewhere. There are certainly not in > the tarball, nor is pointer there. So what? All the GPL says is that we have to make them available. And unlike many companies, we make them available immediately. Most people stall as long as they possibly can. There is plenty of precedent for us to delay for 6 months and we don't. > What you should do is to put What you should do is go away. -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm From rms@santafe.edu Sat Mar 16 07:40:06 2002 Return-Path: Received: from jabberwock.ucw.cz (postfix@jabberwock.ucw.cz [212.71.128.53]) by atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian 8.9.3-21) with ESMTP id HAA17591 for ; Sat, 16 Mar 2002 07:40:06 +0100 Received: from pele.santafe.edu (pele.santafe.edu [192.12.12.119]) by jabberwock.ucw.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0E6CB91F for ; Sat, 16 Mar 2002 07:40:01 +0100 (CET) Received: from wijiji.santafe.edu (wijiji [192.12.12.5]) by pele.santafe.edu (8.11.6+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id g2G6dpa20751; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 23:39:51 -0700 (MST) Received: (from rms@localhost) by wijiji.santafe.edu (8.11.6+Sun/8.9.3) id g2G6dom07440; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 23:39:50 -0700 (MST) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 23:39:50 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <200203160639.g2G6dom07440@wijiji.santafe.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: wijiji.santafe.edu: rms set sender to rms@wijiji using -f From: Richard Stallman To: pavel@ucw.cz In-Reply-To: <20020314235734.GA363@elf.ucw.cz> (message from Pavel Machek on Fri, 15 Mar 2002 00:57:35 +0100) Subject: Re: bitkeeper: licencing issues Reply-To: rms@gnu.org References: <20020314235734.GA363@elf.ucw.cz> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 required=5 tests= Status: RO X-Status: A Content-Length: 1005 Lines: 24 I sent mail to our lawyer to consider what is right to do in regard to diff and the GPL. Thank you for informing me. But whatever happens with that, there is a deeper point here: Licence contains such things as "all your changes are now ours" and "if our costs on you exceed something, we may terminate your licence". You will not be even able to use your changes (ouch #2) Then I reallized I'm getting self-extracting executable (ouch #3)... Self-extracting executable is about as evil as thing can be, You have seen several things in Bitkeeper that strike you as evil. I agree. Bitkeeper is not free software; it is basically bad, wrong. But then... because I am not able to say what damage it tries to do when I run it. So I created sandbox user (fortunately I'm root) and installed. you went ahead and installed it anyway. Why do that? Since you see it is a bad thing, you really should stay away from Bitkeeper. If you use it, you encourage others to use it. From pavel@ucw.cz Mon Mar 18 00:04:20 2002 Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 00:04:20 +0100 From: Pavel Machek To: Larry McVoy Cc: rms@gnu.org Subject: Re: bitkeeper: licencing issues Message-ID: <20020317230420.GB2745@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> References: <20020314235734.GA363@elf.ucw.cz> <20020315074928.A11940@work.bitmover.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020315074928.A11940@work.bitmover.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.27i Status: RO Content-Length: 1752 Lines: 45 Hi! > When you run the installer it says this: > > If you want to do the install yourself, enter "none" and we will leave this > installation script and the gzipped tar archive in /tmp and you can do any > customization you might want (or just see what it is doing). > > In other words, all the installer amounts to is a binary which when you > run it, produces a shell script and a tarball. You only had to read 84 > words to have known this. I believe that's irrelevant. [What is relevant is that installer itself seems to be GPLed, so I might try to compile it myself then cmp to see if you are doing something evil.] 1) I can't easilly see that it will not do anything else. (Mail you my personal info, mess up disk by accident, overwrite something in /tmp). 2) You managed to put GPL and non-GPL software into one program (installer). It looks pretty ugly to me, and I'm not sure this qualifies as mere aggregation from "GPL_COPYING". [Hmm, looking at that diff closer...: pavel@amd:/opt/bitkeeper$ ./diff ./diff: missing operand ./diff: Try `./diff --help' for more information. pavel@amd:/opt/bitkeeper$ ./diff --version diff - GNU diffutils version 2.7 pavel@amd:/opt/bitkeeper$ ./diff --copying ./diff: unrecognized option `--copying' ./diff: Try `./diff --help' for more information. pavel@amd:/opt/bitkeeper$ grep -i GPL diff pavel@amd:/opt/bitkeeper$ grep -i "General" diff pavel@amd:/opt/bitkeeper$ There's actually no indication that its distributed under GPL. GPL is only mentioned 3 times, and you are really not saying anywhere that diff etc. is GPL-ed. You may not do that. Pavel -- Casualities in World Trade Center: ~3k dead inside the building, cryptography in U.S.A. and free speech in Czech Republic. From pavel@ucw.cz Mon Mar 18 00:51:31 2002 Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 00:51:31 +0100 From: Pavel Machek To: Larry McVoy Cc: rms@gnu.org Subject: Re: bitkeeper: licencing issues Message-ID: <20020317235131.GC3529@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> References: <20020314235734.GA363@elf.ucw.cz> <20020315074928.A11940@work.bitmover.com> <20020317230420.GB2745@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <20020317153936.O10086@work.bitmover.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020317153936.O10086@work.bitmover.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.27i Status: RO Content-Length: 4145 Lines: 105 Hi! > > > When you run the installer it says this: > > > > > > If you want to do the install yourself, enter "none" and we will leave this > > > installation script and the gzipped tar archive in /tmp and you can do any > > > customization you might want (or just see what it is doing). > > > > > > In other words, all the installer amounts to is a binary which when you > > > run it, produces a shell script and a tarball. You only had to read 84 > > > words to have known this. > > > > I believe that's irrelevant. [What is relevant is that installer > > itself seems to be GPLed, so I might try to compile it myself then cmp > > to see if you are doing something evil.] > > The installer is not GPLed and you obviously don't know what you are > talking about. If you are correct then any GPLed program in a No? (c) The subsets of the system known as the MDBM library, the LEAKS library, and the INSTALLER are also avail- able under the terms of the GPL. > > 1) I can't easilly see that it will not do anything else. (Mail you my > > personal info, mess up disk by accident, overwrite something in /tmp). > > It's a *tarball* and a *shell script*. Go read the shell script and > stop being stupid. And if you had just politely asked for the installer > source itself, we would have sent you that. At this point you'll get > it when hell freezes over. What I downloaded off your website is not a shellscript. I has ELF header on it. I can only get shellscript + tarball by running it. root@amd:/tmp# ls -al x86-glibc21-linux.bin -rwxr-xr-x 1 pavel users 1419350 Mar 14 13:35 x86-glibc21-linux.bin* root@amd:/tmp# file x86-glibc21-linux.bin x86-glibc21-linux.bin: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), not stripped root@amd:/tmp# strings x86-glibc21-linux.bin | head /lib/ld-linux.so.2 __gmon_start__ libc.so.6 getpid perror creat system write fprintf __deregister_frame_info root@amd:/tmp# > Let's see. We build an installer that is nothing more than a self > extracting archive. We put in the instructions that if you are ...and here you even acknowledge it. > panoid > just tell it that you don't want it to install, just leave the files > in /tmp. The installer itself is a shell script. And you complain. I'm paranoid. If I want to get .tar, I have to *run* your executable. It can do anything at that point. > If you don't like it, don't use BitKeeper. If you think we're violating > the law, sue us. Otherwise you are just pissing into the wind. > > > There's actually no indication that its distributed under GPL. GPL is > > only mentioned 3 times, and you are really not saying anywhere that > > diff etc. is GPL-ed. You may not do that. > > Really? We didn't change any of the messages you are describing so if > you think we're violating the GPL, so is the FSF. And anyone else who > distributes diff. If FSF is distributting diff binary alone, it is certainly violating GPL itself. FSF is certainly not doing that. > The GPL requires that we make our changes available in a timely manner. > We do, they on our our ftp site, placed there when we do a release. > In addition, we offered our changes to the maintainers a long time ago > and got told they were fixing it a 'better way' (and still haven't as > far as I can tell). You're welcome to the code, I'd love it if the > FSF picked up the changes, then we wouldn't have to maintain them. Okay, so sources are available somewhere. There are certainly not in the tarball, nor is pointer there. What you should do is to put "This package contains modified versions of diff, cmp, (...), distributed under GPL. You can download sources at ftp://..../." You should also put COPYING file somewhere in the self-extracting archive, so that people who never seen GPL can actually read what it is. Then I'd see you are acknowledging GPL, and would go to the ftp site and would not waste your time. Pavel -- Casualities in World Trade Center: ~3k dead inside the building, cryptography in U.S.A. and free speech in Czech Republic. From pavel@ucw.cz Mon Mar 18 11:43:59 2002 Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 11:44:06 +0100 From: Pavel Machek To: Larry McVoy Cc: rms@gnu.org Subject: Re: bitkeeper: licencing issues Message-ID: <20020318104405.GA13648@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> References: <20020314235734.GA363@elf.ucw.cz> <20020315074928.A11940@work.bitmover.com> <20020317230420.GB2745@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <20020317153936.O10086@work.bitmover.com> <20020317235131.GC3529@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <20020317160241.B19630@work.bitmover.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020317160241.B19630@work.bitmover.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.27i Status: RO Content-Length: 2454 Lines: 55 Hi! > > (c) The subsets of the system known as the MDBM library, > > the LEAKS library, and the INSTALLER are also avail- > > able under the terms of the GPL. > > Not anymore, thanks to you. You free software guys need to get a clue. > I'm letting you use a $5000/seat chunk of software for free. I'm > running What you are doing is trying to give us trojan horse *you claim* is worth $5000. > a business. Any time that you waste my time, I'll just pull back on what > I give you until you stop. So you just lost rights to access that code. > Your loss. Keep arguing, there is plenty more to take away. Great, pull that off the net so Linus can stop using it while it is easy. > > Okay, so sources are available somewhere. There are certainly not in > > the tarball, nor is pointer there. > > So what? All the GPL says is that we have to make them available. And > unlike many companies, we make them available immediately. Most people > stall as long as they possibly can. There is plenty of precedent for > us to delay for 6 months and we don't. GPL says: 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following: a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.) You are doing neither a) nor b) [c) is not applicable to you.]. Pavel -- Casualities in World Trade Center: ~3k dead inside the building, cryptography in U.S.A. and free speech in Czech Republic. From pavel@ucw.cz Mon Mar 18 00:06:56 2002 Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 00:06:56 +0100 From: Pavel Machek To: Richard Stallman Subject: Re: bitkeeper: licencing issues Message-ID: <20020317230656.GC2745@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> References: <20020314235734.GA363@elf.ucw.cz> <200203160639.g2G6dom07440@wijiji.santafe.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200203160639.g2G6dom07440@wijiji.santafe.edu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.27i Status: RO Content-Length: 690 Lines: 19 Hi! > You have seen several things in Bitkeeper that strike you as evil. > I agree. Bitkeeper is not free software; it is basically bad, wrong. ... > you went ahead and installed it anyway. Why do that? > > Since you see it is a bad thing, you really should stay away from > Bitkeeper. If you use it, you encourage others to use it. Agreed I'd rather stay away from bitkeeper; but Linus Torvalds started to use it for linux master repository. Which is ... quite a big encouragement for everyone to use it. (But you knew that already, right?) Pavel -- Casualities in World Trade Center: ~3k dead inside the building, cryptography in U.S.A. and free speech in Czech Republic. From pavel@ucw.cz Fri Mar 15 00:57:34 2002 Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 00:57:34 +0100 From: Pavel Machek To: lm@bitmover.com, rms@gnu.org Subject: bitkeeper: licencing issues Message-ID: <20020314235734.GA363@elf.ucw.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.27i X-Warning: Reading this can be dangerous to your mental health. Status: RO Content-Length: 1321 Lines: 34 Hi! I got bitkeeper. It forced me to give my email address (ouch #1). Licence contains such things as "all your changes are now ours" and "if our costs on you exceed something, we may terminate your licence". You will not be even able to use your changes (ouch #2) Then I reallized I'm getting self-extracting executable (ouch #3)... Self-extracting executable is about as evil as thing can be, because I am not able to say what damage it tries to do when I run it. So I created sandbox user (fortunately I'm root) and installed. And then... If contains guest@amd:/opt/bitkeeper$ ./diff --version diff - GNU diffutils version 2.7 guest@amd:/opt/bitkeeper$ . That's GPL'ed tool, but you have not included text of GPL anywhere close, and I do not see written offer that you'll give me sources in the package. Even if you included those sources, I would not be able to regenerate that self-extracting archive. I think you are violating GPL by putting diff etc. into self-extracting archive user has no chance to regenerate. Issue should be easy to resolve by including GPL, offer for sources, and by distributing bitkeeper in plain .tar.gz. Pavel -- (about SSSCA) "I don't say this lightly. However, I really think that the U.S. no longer is classifiable as a democracy, but rather as a plutocracy." --hpa