Earlier this year, Linus agreed to test out BitKeeper, Larry McVoy's source management tool. Its non-open-source licensing has lead to a fury of protest and discussion.

James Simmons announced innocently enough on the lkml, "Just to let you know I created a bitkeeper repository for the framebuffer layer." M. R. Brown replied a couple hours later, "Please tell us that primary framebuffer/input/console development will continue in the CVS drop-in tree on SourceForge? "

Linus' earlier decision to test the BitKeeper source management tool with the 2.5 kernel tree has continued to create wakes of dissent. One group went so far as to start a petition against the usage of the tool, saying "We, the undersigned members and officers of the Open Source Club at the Ohio State University, are unhappy with the advocacy of the proprietary[1] BitKeeper software for use in maintaining the Linux kernel." Details on the BitKeeper licenses that so many are opposed to can be found here.

The posting of this petition led to a frenzy of replies, in a thread that continues to grow. Many pointed out that the time spent protesting this tool could be much more productively invested into writing an open source alternative of at least equal caliber. All seem to agree that such an alternative does not currently exist.

Towards the end of the many samples from this thread that follow is a reply from Linus, making it clear that he is content using BK himself, but will in no way force it upon anyone else. In his email, he says, "And I personally refuse to use inferior tools because of ideology. In fact, I will go as far as saying that making excuses for bad tools due to ideology is _stupid_, and people who do that think with their gonads, not their brains".