Including Linux, which originally used the proprietary BitKeeper VCS system before Torvalds wrote git.

The Github repository for the kernel is a mirror of the actual kernel.org repository.

The kernel does not use a Github-style workflow, either.

He's not talking about them using Github as his example, he's talking about them using Bitkeeper in the past.

It was a huge controversy back in the day, with prominent kernel devs being very vocally against BitKeeper.

From Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitKeeper):

"The decision made in 2002 to use BitKeeper for Linux kernel development was a controversial one. Some, including GNU Project founder Richard Stallman, expressed concern about proprietary tools being used on a flagship free project. While project leader Linus Torvalds and other core developers adopted BitKeeper, several key developers (including Linux veteran Alan Cox) refused to do so, citing the BitMover license, and voicing concern that the project was ceding some control to a proprietary developer."

Not that it matters to anyone, but I do remember I found it shocking news :)

I don't think we can compare the state of OSS then to now.

Probably because BitKeeper definitely was proprietary back when the Linux kernel was using it even if it got open sourced later... Your comment seemed to be suggesting otherwise.

> Probably because BitKeeper definitely was proprietary back when the Linux kernel was using it even if it got open sourced later... Your comment seemed to be suggesting otherwise.

I specially looked in the dictionary what the translation of "mittlerweile" [de] means in English ("by that time"). Additionally I did not write "BitKeeper was by that time open source under Apache 2.0 License", but "BitKeeper is by that time open source under Apache 2.0 License", which to my understanding of English grammar means that I am writing about something that currently holds. Additionally the German word "mittlerweile" (which by my dictionary means "by that time", as I already remarked) has exactly the meaning that it was different in the past - and my language feeling says this also holds if "by that time" is used in a present tense sentence. Even if not: if I were to say that it was already open source in the past (when Linus Torvald decided to create Git), I would have used the simple past tense. Using a present tense sentence for such a formulation does not make sense with respect to my understanding of the English grammar.

People probably mistook "by that time" as "at that time" instead of "since", which was what you meant. Also, use "has been" instead of "is", as the open-sourcing happened sometime in the past (although it is in the state of open-source now).

I would suggest that needing to defend a particular use of grammar on a discussion site is a bit like needing to explain a joke. It means your original message simply wasn't effective.

Regardless, you haven't explained what your actual point was. BitKeeper switching to open source after Linus's initial decision to use it doesn't refute the original commenter's point.