|
|
Log in / Subscribe / Register

GPL-ed projects and politics

GPL-ed projects and politics

Posted Sep 23, 2006 17:48 UTC (Sat) by mingo (subscriber, #31122)
In reply to: Bad, bad DRM by man_ls
Parent article: Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

Other GPL-licensed projects (gcc, emacs) do a lot of politics and are wildly successful.

Maybe my different viewpoint comes partly from the fact that i'm right in the middle of these projects. The kernel has lots of dependencies on both gcc and glibc, so we follow them with great interest and we very much want those projects to succeed. Gcc has struggled for years (commercial compilers were leagues better) because it was developed in such a political way for a long time. When the egcs and pgcc projects threatened a hard fork it has been depoliticized and gcc got alot more contribution-centric, and it is in a much better technical shape now.

For glibc i suggest you read the following announcement from Ulrich Drepper (who has contributed most of the glibc code and who has been doing this for ~10 years), from August 2001. I'd suggest for you to scroll down to the section that starts with "And now for some not so nice things": glibc 2.2.4 announcement . (This was all of course eclipsed by the sad events of 9/11.)

This stuff definitely takes some digestion, and i dont expect you to take this from me at face value, because you do seem to (honestly) believe in the opposite, but doesnt it at least raise some doubt in you, which doubt would justify some more investigation and some more pondering?


to post comments

GPL-ed projects and politics

Posted Sep 24, 2006 6:45 UTC (Sun) by man_ls (guest, #15091) [Link]

doesnt it at least raise some doubt in you, which doubt would justify some more investigation and some more pondering?
Sure it does. In fact now that you say it I do not think that politics are that good in a software project. Still, there are times when people have to unite against really bad ideas.

GPL-ed projects and politics

Posted Sep 25, 2006 20:55 UTC (Mon) by k8to (guest, #15413) [Link]

Yes, Stallman can be a crazy nutter unwilling to accept outside input.
Still, the response I am seeing from you and the other kernel devs is
similarly simplistic. Because Stallman does "politics" which are bad,
changing proposed by Stallman are "political".

If you don't believe in politics, argue against the new controls being
added to GPLv3 from a practical viewpoint.

If you _do_ believe in politics, argue against the new controls being
added to GPLv3 from a political viewpoint.

Simply calling them "politics" comes off as a refusal to address them at
all.


Copyright © 2026, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds