3 ms·

What Tridge did was something to prove a point rather than to make a feasible BK alternative, so it was ultimately a stunt. I don't dismiss the importance of it

What Tridge did was something to prove a point rather than to make a feasible BK alternative, so it was ultimately a stunt. I don't dismiss the importance of it and LKP should've not indeed depend on a proprietary tool, but it was one of less civil ways to go about the issue.

michaelmrose 10y ago
Why ought someone expect people to be worried about politeness insofar as accessing their own data. Conflict solely existed based on a badly thought out expectation on the part of bitkeeper. If you look at the reaction this wasn't going to be something that could be delicately handled in any case.
vacri 10y ago
Stunt? Here is the description of the oh-so-cunning reverse engineering: Tridgell telnetted to the port and typed 'help': https://lwn.net/Articles/132938/ https://lwn.net/Articles/132938/
- huhtenberg 10y ago
  He did a lot more that just issuing a command over a telnet session. Google for "SourcePuller".
  - 0x0 10y ago
    The sourcepuller code looks almost trivial, at least for the clone operation? http://sourcepuller.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/sourcepuller/sp/clone.c?revision=1.1.1.1&view=markup http://sourcepuller.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/sourcepuller/... https://lwn.net/Articles/132938/ https://lwn.net/Articles/132938/
  - gcp 10y ago
    That's the implementation of the result. Not sure what your point is.
- mioelnir 10y ago
  This does not matter one bit. Bitkeeper offered the use of a product under a condition, in other words, a license. And it offered the product for free, expecting the license to be honoured. Every open source developer should respect and uphold that agreement, once entered by both sides. Your personal opinion of the license terms is irrelevant. You respect other people's license, because you want them to follow yours. If developers can not grasp that, how do we expect users to?
  - michaelmrose 10y ago
    Using a license to limit others freedom to access and use their own data to maximize the opportunity for the developer to profit is a bug not a feature and its nothing anyone least of all developers ought to respect. Not only is the world composed of 99.99% users 0.01% developers but even developers are net consumers of software consuming 1000 x what they will ever create and profit from. Everyone's freedom is so vastly more important than a trivial few's wholly imaginary "right" to profit. Software is anymore the building block of civilization, culture, business. Valuing the right to restrict others over everyone's interests is a strange inversion of priorities.
    - mioelnir 10y ago
      If you disagree with a license then do not accept it, do not use the software, do not use the product. Talking so high about freedom and rights, and then calling other people's rights trivial when they do not fit in your echo chamber of righteousness.
      - michaelmrose 10y ago
        I believe tridge wanted to use his own client to talk to the server ergo this use case is a rejection of the license and product. Copyright isn't a right in the sense that anyone uses that word.
DonHopkins 10y ago
Procedural agitprop.

michaelmrose 10y ago

Why ought someone expect people to be worried about politeness insofar as accessing their own data. Conflict solely existed based on a badly thought out expectation on the part of bitkeeper. If you look at the reaction this wasn't going to be something that could be delicately handled in any case.

vacri 10y ago

Stunt? Here is the description of the oh-so-cunning reverse engineering: Tridgell telnetted to the port and typed 'help': https://lwn.net/Articles/132938/ https://lwn.net/Articles/132938/

huhtenberg 10y ago
He did a lot more that just issuing a command over a telnet session. Google for "SourcePuller".
- 0x0 10y ago
  The sourcepuller code looks almost trivial, at least for the clone operation? http://sourcepuller.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/sourcepuller/sp/clone.c?revision=1.1.1.1&view=markup http://sourcepuller.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/sourcepuller/... https://lwn.net/Articles/132938/ https://lwn.net/Articles/132938/
- gcp 10y ago
  That's the implementation of the result. Not sure what your point is.
mioelnir 10y ago
This does not matter one bit. Bitkeeper offered the use of a product under a condition, in other words, a license. And it offered the product for free, expecting the license to be honoured. Every open source developer should respect and uphold that agreement, once entered by both sides. Your personal opinion of the license terms is irrelevant. You respect other people's license, because you want them to follow yours. If developers can not grasp that, how do we expect users to?
- michaelmrose 10y ago
  Using a license to limit others freedom to access and use their own data to maximize the opportunity for the developer to profit is a bug not a feature and its nothing anyone least of all developers ought to respect. Not only is the world composed of 99.99% users 0.01% developers but even developers are net consumers of software consuming 1000 x what they will ever create and profit from. Everyone's freedom is so vastly more important than a trivial few's wholly imaginary "right" to profit. Software is anymore the building block of civilization, culture, business. Valuing the right to restrict others over everyone's interests is a strange inversion of priorities.
  - mioelnir 10y ago
    If you disagree with a license then do not accept it, do not use the software, do not use the product. Talking so high about freedom and rights, and then calling other people's rights trivial when they do not fit in your echo chamber of righteousness.
    - michaelmrose 10y ago
      I believe tridge wanted to use his own client to talk to the server ergo this use case is a rejection of the license and product. Copyright isn't a right in the sense that anyone uses that word.

DonHopkins 10y ago

Procedural agitprop.