Kernel developers' position on GPLv3
Posted Sep 28, 2006 17:25 UTC (Thu) by smoogen
In reply to: Kernel developers' position on GPLv3
Parent article: Kernel developers' position on GPLv3
One of the arguments behind Cathederal and Bazaar that has been lost was how development around FSF itmes seemed very insular around Boston. The Emacs/Xemacs and the gcc/ecgs forks were due to a very Cathederal take that the FSF had over its own software. The HURD/Linux "fork" was also an example. HURD was built as a cathederal and had many incarnations that booted but didn't cover everything that the people wanted back then to show. Linux booted but barely had a user environment and it went out the door.
Talking about Linux to RMS was a "forbidden" topic where one would get a nice letter chastising people over using something that was taking away effort from FSF goals. He never answered my question when I could get a bootable HURD to test this stuff with. After a while the stern lecture about hurting FSF got replaced by saying that Linux had to be called GNU/Linux.
So when ESR originally wrote C&B he was talking about how the Linux development model was better than the closed door FSF model. FSF has changed a lot since then.. so you get better access to their snapshots and stuff
to post comments)