Re: [OT] Re: configure script

[David Kastrup <David.Kastrup@t-online.de>]

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