I read a lot of the mailing list threads back when all this was going on, and I don't recall feeling any particular sympathy toward McVoy at all.
The fundamental issue I saw was that McVoy decided to foist what I consider an unconscionable license agreement upon his unpaid open source users: users were prohibited from working on another version control system without having their license to use the read-only BitKeeper client revoked. (And reverse engineering BK's protocol was also forbidden.) From the starting line I already thought he was slimy for that.
This is where Torvalds should have gotten his big honking "I told you so", but I expect he took the wrong lesson from it since he was able to whip up an acceptable alternative in git in a fairly short amount of time[0].
Anyway, McVoy was usually pretty civil in email threads about the whole thing (likely with a few angry words here and there), but I don't think that really mattered to me: IMO he was asking something unethical of his users from the start, and so I think ethically Tridge was completely in the right to reverse engineer BK's protocol and write an unencumbered client. McVoy's response to take his ball and go home was of course entirely within his rights, but was oh so childish. And, surprise, BitKeeper has since failed as a product; I believe it's now open source, and has a tiny fraction of git's user base.
[0] I think it's easy for some to take the -- IMO mistaken -- view that "being allowed to" (eye roll) use BitKeeper was a "generous" gift, because it pushed someone to build a viable open-source alternative when their back was against a wall. My view is that it was just lucky for the open source community that McVoy went up against one of the few people with the talent and motivation to out-build BitKeeper. This is one of those times RMS's preaching against using closed-source software is so spot-on, publicly, painfully correct.
What I think he should have learned: betting the workflow of your open source project on a closed source solution is going to come back to bite you, and you shouldn't do that in the first place.
What he probably learned: I'm badass enough to clone a proprietary tool in a matter of weeks if my decisions end up being bad.
Which I guess is fine for him, but likely not most people.
> The fundamental issue I saw was that McVoy decided to foist what I consider an unconscionable license agreement upon his unpaid open source users: users were prohibited from working on another version control system without having their license to use the read-only BitKeeper client revoked. (And reverse engineering BK's protocol was also forbidden.) From the starting line I already thought he was slimy for that.
I'm letting you use my commercial product under the understanding that you won't try to undermine it... I think that's actually pretty reasonable. I'm giving you something for nothing in return, and all I ask is not to try to take more from me? I always though that Tridge was ungrateful in the situation.
I get that you might have no problem with that, but personally I find that kind of arrangement unethical, and I would never agree to that sort of license.
Also note that I believe the "free for open source users" version of the BK client was a read-only client that only allowed pulling code. So it's not like McVoy was giving his whole product away for free, out of the generosity of his heart.
> ...and all I ask is not to try to take more from me?
Reverse engineering is a neutral activity. There's no "taking" going on.
> I always though that Tridge was ungrateful in the situation.
Ungrateful that he was forced to use a crippled, proprietary tool to interface with the development process of a project he's involved in? A tool that expressly disallows him from doing anything to make that situation better? That's rubbish.
The fundamental issue I saw was that McVoy decided to foist what I consider an unconscionable license agreement upon his unpaid open source users: users were prohibited from working on another version control system without having their license to use the read-only BitKeeper client revoked. (And reverse engineering BK's protocol was also forbidden.) From the starting line I already thought he was slimy for that.
This is where Torvalds should have gotten his big honking "I told you so", but I expect he took the wrong lesson from it since he was able to whip up an acceptable alternative in git in a fairly short amount of time[0].
Anyway, McVoy was usually pretty civil in email threads about the whole thing (likely with a few angry words here and there), but I don't think that really mattered to me: IMO he was asking something unethical of his users from the start, and so I think ethically Tridge was completely in the right to reverse engineer BK's protocol and write an unencumbered client. McVoy's response to take his ball and go home was of course entirely within his rights, but was oh so childish. And, surprise, BitKeeper has since failed as a product; I believe it's now open source, and has a tiny fraction of git's user base.
[0] I think it's easy for some to take the -- IMO mistaken -- view that "being allowed to" (eye roll) use BitKeeper was a "generous" gift, because it pushed someone to build a viable open-source alternative when their back was against a wall. My view is that it was just lucky for the open source community that McVoy went up against one of the few people with the talent and motivation to out-build BitKeeper. This is one of those times RMS's preaching against using closed-source software is so spot-on, publicly, painfully correct.