The return of the Unix wars?

Posted May 5, 2012 1:21 UTC (Sat) by bronson (subscriber, #4806)
In reply to: The return of the Unix wars? by clump
Parent article: The return of the Unix wars?

"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.