Wrong question; you're asking for a philosophical point ("what is wrong")
here, and you'll generally get rhetoric for an answer to it. ;-)
"Think globally, act locally" applies here. If we reword what you asked to
"what is the impact of using development utils that are non-free?", it's
easy to answer, and it has everything to do with (unfortunately)
marketing.
Consider this statement from a closed-source advocate: "Even one of the
most popular open source projects around, Linux, can't get about the
business of developing their system without the assistance of
commecially-developed, closed-source software. What does that tell you
about the viability of open source software when you really need to get
the job done?"
I'd cringe hearing someone say that to me, and would hate having to answer
them. Mainly because I'd know -precisely- what it would tell me, and the
obvious implication that Linux itself would necessarily fall into that
camp.
Back to that "think globally" thing, then. By acting in a small way
(choosing not to use closed-source tools), we in turn prove the viability
of open source projects, which can only reflect well on Linux (being an
open source project itself).
To more directly answer your question: if you're not really interested in
whether the open source movement moves forward, then there's certainly
nothing wrong with using closed development tools. But when there -are-
open alternatives (CVS and PRCS/XDelta, for example, with suppliments such
as Jitterbug, Bonsai, and Tinderbox), "what is wrong with using them?" :-)
> If the license over affects us we can simply stop using it can't we?
> It's not like anything would require it to run.
The problem being that the investment of effort into getting a system like
this going is non-trivial. The fact is: once the primary kernel developers
settle into something, changing will be very difficult to do, and will
make for effort that could be better spend on other things.
I'd rather hold off on that investment of effort until the options are
clearly on the table. And, obviously, I'd probably gravitate toward the
solution that doesn't have the Linux community promoting non-free tools
for the development of free software.
> PS I don't care either way just want that point clarified so I can make an
> informed decision minus the rhetoric.
Smart move. Hopefully I don't sound too much like the stereotypical raving
free-software loonie. ;-)
-- Edward S. Marshall <emarshal@logic.net> http://www.logic.net/~emarshal/ -o) ------------------------------------------------------ ----- ---- --- -- /\\ Who'd have thought that we'd be freed from the Gates of hell by a penguin? _\_v
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/