From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: Re: [OT] Re: configure script Date: 13 Jun 2002 16:56:55 +0200 Organization: T-Online Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <61D0BADD.74BBFB3A.B8B383E9@netscape.net> <200206081915.g58JFT128804@aztec.santafe.edu> <538dgukrilgffka0tdkddf7hdph4i9b5va@4ax.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1023980479 1864 127.0.0.1 (13 Jun 2002 15:01:19 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 15:01:19 +0000 (UTC) Return-path: Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 17IW6A-0000Tx-00 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 17:01:18 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 17IW65-0005HQ-00; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 11:01:13 -0400 Original-Received: from mailout05.sul.t-online.com ([194.25.134.82]) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 17IW34-0004xX-00 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 10:58:06 -0400 Original-Received: from imh00.t-online.com by mailout05.sul.t-online.com with esmtp id 17IW33-0004dd-00; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 16:58:05 +0200 Original-Received: from news.t-online.com by imh00.t-online.com with esmtp id 17IW33-0006fn-00; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 16:58:05 +0200 Original-Received: from news by news.t-online.com with local id 17IW33-0002cQ-00; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 16:58:05 +0200 Original-To: gnu-emacs-bug@prep.ai.mit.edu Original-Path: news.t-online.com!not-for-mail Original-Newsgroups: gnu.emacs.bug Original-Lines: 40 Original-X-Trace: news.t-online.com 1023980284 05 10069 wf2lbFdTSWA4bU 020613 14:58:04 Original-X-Complaints-To: abuse@t-online.com X-Sender: 520018396234-0001@t-dialin.net X-Face: 2FEFf>]>q>2iw=B6,xrUubRI>pR&Ml9=ao@P@i)L:\urd*t9M~y1^:+Y]'C0~{mAl`oQuAl \!3KEIp?*w`|bL5qr,H)LFO6Q=qx~iH4DN;i";/yuIsqbLLCh/!U#X[S~(5eZ41to5f%E@'ELIi$t^ Vc\LWP@J5p^rst0+('>Er0=^1{]M9!p?&:\z]|;&=NP3AhB!B_bi^]Pfkw User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2.50 Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.9 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:2000 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.bugs:2000 eliz@is.elta.co.il (Eli Zaretskii) writes: > > The whole "Open Source" splitoff did not came about because people > > did not care about Free Software: a certain indication of that is > > the prevalent use of the GPL on such software. It simply came > > about because people became embarrassed to be working for the > > cause of Free Software under Richard's banner and auspices. > > From my perspective, that splitoff happened because some people > couldn't make themselves work with RMS as a person. It's that > simple; everything else you hear is rationalizations. Well, it pretty much amounts to the same thing in my opinion. After all, "cooperation" with RMS when developing Free Software does not require personal contact except on projects where he is personally involved as a developer (that would be for example the case for the Emacs/XEmacs split) or where his project management and supervision is involved (which had some effects on the by now mended gcc/egcs split). Where individual projects are concerned, a split of developing teams because of enmities is probably ineffective, but in the end the better approach will usually win out. So the damage is in some way limited. I consider the schisma in Free Software of a somewhat different quality. Open Software chose to distance itself from Free Software because RMS declares himself solely responsible for the ideological representation of every developer daring to contribute to Free Software, since in his opinion this constitutes an implicit contribution to the GNU project for which he is speaker. It's pretty much the same manner of the traditional Pope's claims to be sole representative of _all_ Christian churches (which is IIRC still the official doctrine, though in practice it has been ameliorated somewhat to accommodate political realities). -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum Email: David.Kastrup@t-online.de