GNU/Busybox ?!? [LWN.net]

GNU/Busybox ?!?

Posted Mar 17, 2007 17:26 UTC (Sat) by landley (subscriber, #6789)
In reply to: GNU/Busybox ?!? by nix
Parent article: The road to freedom in the embedded world

> If your bizarre paranoid rant were right

Good to know we're keeping this on an intellectual level. :)

> Perl would be (C) FSF: after all, it was distributed from
> {prep,athena}.ai.mit.edu.
>
> But, oh look, it isn't.

Let's see, google "perl history", click the first hit, and:

> Perl 1.0 was released to usenet's alt.comp.sources in 1987

Sounds like a few years after patch, an alternate distribution channel
was available. I believe I said this already?

> And GCC is still an FSF project, you know; the development methodology
> changed, is all.

Yes, I know, the FSF handed over the title to the fork:
http://slashdot.org/articles/99/04/20/1453234.shtml

The people who did egcs mostly worked for Cygnus, the way the people
doing gcc today mostly work for CodeSourcery.

> The FSF is more than Richard Stallman, and Savannah et al
> should make it clear that even RMS is much less cathedralish than he
> used to be.

How do those two statements _not_ conflict? (FSF != RMS, savannah proves
something about RMS. Huh?)

And Savannah is still there to push a political agenda:
http://lwn.net/Articles/176582/

Rob

(Log in to post comments)

GNU/Busybox ?!?

Posted Mar 22, 2007 1:59 UTC (Thu) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link]

GCC's copyright is owned by the FSF, and at all times during the egcs development fork GNU standards were followed and copyright assignments were collected, because the egcs team wanted to reduce the number of forks (absorbing pgcc and the like).

RMS is still the guy who started GCC and was the release manager for all versions up through 2.5.something. He can sometimes be annoying, but part of the reason he tries so hard to get credit is because of the large number of people who want to minimize his contributions and write him out of history.