Re: Roaring Penguin's view

Martin Wilck wrote:

> > That's because (according to FSF) no non-GPLed programs could use such
> > a library.  Most library writes do like to have their code called.
> Exactly. That's what I wanted to say: Most library writers don't seem to
> subscribe to RMS's point of view.

but libs like glibc, gtk+ is controlled by FSF (it is a GNU project).  This means
they have the copyright and do have the ability (and inclination) to change
the copyright to GPL.  And the FSF *does* subscribe to RMS's point of view.  
 
> > I'll agree with Deven on this.  I this this is unlikely and a fork would
> > be more likely the result.  Would be a really bloody scene though - will make
> > the wine LGPL conversion look mild by comparison....
> 
> Yes. And that is why it won't happen.

emacs/xemacs and the tiff over glibc
   http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/08/19/2039211&mode=thread&tid=117

will lead one to believe otherwise.

> Vendors like RedHat would stop supporting the FSF, because they need to be
> able to run Oracle etc.

unclear what they would do.  It's only indirectly their problem.   It directly
affects oracle.

> All those community members like you and Deven whose primary concern
> appears to be that commercially software can be built upon free software
> would be outrageous.

nah.  I'll I would say is "I told you so." :-)

> The "open source / free software" community,
> diverse as it is now, will almost certainly split into at least two
> camps fighting against each other, very much to their commercial
> competitor's amusement. Think about the FSF and Stallman what you wish,
> but they have made a lot of practical decisions in the past - they are
> not crazy, and they certainly won't risk a disaster like that.

Never attribute to an idealog practical behavior.   It hasn't happened
yet because it has not been advantageous to do so.

-r