Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
LWN.net Weekly Edition for December 5, 2013
Deadline scheduling: coming soon?
LWN.net Weekly Edition for November 27, 2013
ACPI for ARM?
LWN.net Weekly Edition for November 21, 2013
Any actual statements from the FSF?
Posted Oct 3, 2008 14:41 UTC (Fri) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582)
What is true is that RMS's agenda and ideology have not changed significantly since the 1980s. However, everything he does is to promote his cause of free software. If he believes that in certain circumstances a "weaker" licence is more suitable for that cause -- eg, LGPL for glibc, BSD for ogg vorbis -- he says so openly (google for statements in both cases). The circumstances with GCC in the 1980s were not the same as in 2000, and are not the same today. If a convincing argument were made that (a) GCC would compete better with proprietary compilers if a plugin mechanism were available, and (b) the plugin mechanism would be unlikely to suffer misuse, either because it is not in the interest of plugin writers or because the licence was carefully worded -- I believe he would not object.
Yes, but it does not mean they NEVER change
Posted Oct 3, 2008 17:41 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252)
For example GCC 4.3 uses ECJ for Java compiler (instead of GCC's own frontend). It was not an easy sell, but in the end RMS agreed.
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds