Re: Roaring Penguin's view

Martin Wilck wrote:
> Am Don, 2002-06-13 um 13.43 schrieb Roger Fujii:
> > emacs/xemacs and the tiff over glibc
> >    http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/08/19/2039211&mode=thread&tid=117
> That's only the dreaded GNU/Linux story ... what does it have to do with
> our debate?

that was to support the notion that rms/FSF does try to impose its will on
projects and that the libraries aren't completely independent of FSF's
influences.
 
> > Never attribute to an idealog practical behavior.   It hasn't happened
> > yet because it has not been advantageous to do so.
> You think an ideologist is a person who does something if and only if
> it's advantageous for him? Interesting definition. I would have thought
> that is rather the definition of a pragmatist (well, an egoist,
> actually).

That was poorly worded on my part.  Perhaps I should have said "extremely
disadvantageous".   Even an axe-murderer might behave in a police station.
 
> Apart from that, only recently on this list someone told the story of
> RMS agreeing to the ghostscript dual-license model for entirely
> practical reasons.

I believe you read that incorrectly.  He didn't accept dual-license.  He
accepted not having the copyright assigned to FSF (though multi-licensing
is implied by this).  I suppose you can say it's practical to walk on the
bridge, rather than jumping off, but I'd say that's rather extreme.  In the
article, rms had L. Peter Deutsch say in writing that all future versions
were to be GPLed.  I'm not certain you can point to this as an example of
practicality.

> If they see that pushing too hard would harm there goals, they pull
> back.

care to cite some examples?  They are at odds with linus over the kernel.
What do you think their goals are, anyway?

> I'd call that pragmatic behaviour in pursuing an admittedly
> politically and ideologically motivated goal. I am 100% convinced that
> everybody at the FSF, including Stallman, knows that GPLling central
> libraries of the GNU system that are now LGPL would harm their goal
> dramatically by scaring people (and companies) away.

look at the fsf libs directory and tell me how many are GPLed:
   http://www.gnu.org/directory/Libraries/

If it weren't their eventual intention, they would not have put that LGPL->GPL
conversion phrase in the license. 

-r