The return of the Unix wars?

Posted Apr 26, 2012 21:34 UTC (Thu) by marcH (subscriber, #57642)
Parent article: The return of the Unix wars?

Apologies for sounding like RMS but, I can hardly believe neither "GNU" nor "GPL" was ever mentioned in the article. I think this makes a massive difference compared to the "Unix wars" era, much more difference than what the end of the article barely suggests.

The return of the Unix wars?

Posted May 3, 2012 15:04 UTC (Thu) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] (10 responses)

The last paragraph mentioned the GPL and all other licenses like it. It said the same thing you did, not sure where you get "barely"...? When talking about free software is there always a need to call out the GPL individually, even in short articles?

The return of the Unix wars?

Posted May 3, 2012 17:48 UTC (Thu) by marcH (subscriber, #57642) [Link] (9 responses)

The last paragraph did not mention GPL nor any other license, just a vague "As long as the software remains free,..."

IMHO this is the key argument. Yet it's just the last sentence.

> When talking about free software is there always a need to call out the GPL individually, even in short articles?

Only when talking about fragmentation, which is one of the thing the GPL effectively prevents. There was a lot of open-source code involved in the Unix wars - none GPL.

PS: I did not write "barely" either.

The return of the Unix wars?

Posted May 3, 2012 19:57 UTC (Thu) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] (8 responses)

Not every story needs to be a news story with an inverted triangle structure. Opinion pieces are often organized to present supporting evidence first, then wrap it up with a punchy ending. I thought this story did that well. That Jon's ultimate point happened to come at the end doesn't diminish my enjoyment of it at all.

The GPL effectively prevents fragmentation? Are you sure? The gcc and glibc projects provide evidence to the contrary. And I notice quite a number of GPL-licensed OSes out there; not everybody is contributing to the Hurd or even contributing back to Linux. Free software tends to make fragmentation easier to solve, definitely, but why does the GPL stand out above any others?

PS. barely is the second-to-last word you wrote. ?

The return of the Unix wars?

Posted May 4, 2012 22:02 UTC (Fri) by clump (subscriber, #27801) [Link] (7 responses)

The GPL makes fragmentation easier to solve by its reciprocal nature. Sure, you can fork but you can't privatise the software. Should a deviation be attractive enough, the original software can incorporate the changes.

There are plenty of examples where software under non-reciprocal licenses like BSD has been incorporated into proprietary software. GPL violations certainly occur, but the nature of the license ensures your fork can't eclipse the original simply by hiding your changes.

The return of the Unix wars?

Posted May 5, 2012 1:21 UTC (Sat) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] (6 responses)

"easier to solve" is not the same as "prevent". All open source licenses make fragmentation easier to solve.

Whether some licenses are better than others at solving fragmentation is a complex question. How many projects have been started simply to avoid the more onerous restrictions of the GPL? LLVM, Android, etc... would all this fragmentation had happened if these projects were under a more liberal license? Seems unlikely.

So, in the real world, I don't think that it can just be taken for granted that the GPL is the best license for avoiding fragmentation. It's a seriously complex question.

The return of the Unix wars?

Posted May 5, 2012 11:59 UTC (Sat) by marcH (subscriber, #57642) [Link] (5 responses)

> How many projects have been started simply to avoid the more onerous restrictions of the GPL? LLVM, Android, etc... would all this fragmentation had happened...

I don't think "fragmentation" is the right term when referring to LLVM vs gcc, this is just competition. I agree that fear of the GPL encourages competing against it.

Compared to the Unix wars: - LLVM is not a fork from gcc's codebase; - they do not actively try to be incompatible with each other and achieve vendor lock-in; - the C standard is not under any risk because they compete with each other.

In respect of this discussion "Android" should not be considered as just one project but, as the GPL Android Linux kernel on the one hand and the non-GPL rest on the other hand(s).

The return of the Unix wars?

Posted May 8, 2012 16:13 UTC (Tue) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] (4 responses)

One man's fragmentation is another man's competition. That sounds like semantics and doesn't demonstrate why GPL should be placed on a higher pedestal than other open licenses...?

The return of the Unix wars?

Posted May 8, 2012 16:26 UTC (Tue) by marcH (subscriber, #57642) [Link] (3 responses)

> One man's fragmentation is another man's competition.

I listed a few factual criteria, what are yours?

> ... on a higher pedestal...

OK you are just trolling. Your question has been answered above.

The return of the Unix wars?

Posted May 9, 2012 18:58 UTC (Wed) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] (2 responses)

Having a hard time understanding your factual criteria... if it's a fork of some commit way in the past then it's fragmentation, and if it never shared any ancestry then it's competition? Does this apply to Dalvik? But, I gotta say, dividing forks into competition and fragmentation groups doesn't seem like a real useful endeavor to me. Mere semantics.

> Your question has been answered above.

Where? Why should Jon have called out the GPL specifically? A little quick to whip out the troll pejorative aren't we?

The return of the Unix wars?

Posted May 9, 2012 19:32 UTC (Wed) by marcH (subscriber, #57642) [Link] (1 responses)

> Having a hard time understanding your factual criteria...

Try harder?

> But, I gotta say, dividing forks into competition and fragmentation groups doesn't seem like a real useful endeavor to me.

It's actually even more than useless: it's off-topic since LLVM is simply not a gcc fork. Another troll attempt?

> Why should Jon have called out the GPL specifically?

Crystal-clear explanation just a few posts above http://lwn.net/Articles/495998/
This is the post which you do not seem to have understood, either because of "mere semantics" problems or, maybe because of some emotional problems with the GPL? ("pedestal...")

> A little quick to whip out the troll pejorative aren't we?

No, not really... You actually sound too smart not to have understood the above explanation. Which means you are only pretending you did not. Bye.

The return of the Unix wars?

Posted May 11, 2012 14:50 UTC (Fri) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link]

It was a simple question: why should the article have called out the GPL specifically? The link you give doesn't answer that. If, after so many words, there's still no clear answer, then I guess the article was fine as written.