[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Damming Indicmentof RMS by Ulrich Drepper (GLibc lead developer)
- From: Kalum / Grendel <kalum delrom ro>
- To: <redhat-install-list redhat com>
- Subject: Damming Indicmentof RMS by Ulrich Drepper (GLibc lead developer)
- Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 05:57:26 +0600 (LKT)
Ulrich Drepper the lead developer for glibc, has in the end of the
exposed RMS for the utterly unreasonable twisted creature that he is.
I would like to exceprt certain sections which are most relevant for us
Stallman recently tried what I would call a hostile takeover of the glibc
development. He tried to conspire behind my back and persuade the other
main developers to take control so that in the end he is in control and
can dictate whatever pleases him. This attempt failed but he kept on
pressuring people everywhere and it got really ugly. In the end I agreed
to the creation of a so-called "steering committee" (SC). The SC is
different from the SC in projects like gcc in that it does not make
decisions. On this front nothing changed. The only difference is that
Stallman now has no right to complain anymore since the SC he wanted
acknowledged the status quo. I hope he will now shut up forever.
The morale of this is that people will hopefully realize what a control
freak and raging manic Stallman is. Don't trust him. As soon as
something isn't in line with his view he'll stab you in the back. NEVER
voluntarily put a project you work on under the GNU umbrella since this
means in Stallman's opinion that he has the right to make decisions for
Grendels comment: I completely agree here, NEVER make your project
under the label GNU, you will have to confirm to GNU coding stanrdards and
the other bullshit. Just the fact that making your programe GNU puts
additional strain as you have to confirm to a myriad of "standards",
rather than coding. IMHO the paper the GNU coding standards are written
on isnot even good to use to wrpa fish. What the a decision about a
projects coding stanrdards should be taken by the lead developer and not y
The glibc situation is even more frightening if one realizes the story
behind it. When I started porting glibc 1.09 to Linux (which eventually
became glibc 2.0) Stallman threatened me and tried to force me to
contribute rather to the work on the Hurd. Work on Linux would be
counter-productive to the Free Software course. Then came, what would be
called embrace-and-extend if performed by the Evil of the North-West, and
his claim for everything whichlead to Linux's success.
Which brings us to the second point. One change the SC forced to happen
against my will was to use LGPL 2.1 instead of LGPL 2. The argument was
that the poor lawyers cannot see that LGPL 2 is sufficient. Guess who
were the driving forces behind this.
The most remarkable thing is that Stallman was
all for this despite the clear motivation of commercialization. The
reason: he finally got the provocative changes he made to the license
through. In case you forgot or haven't heard, here's an excerpt:
[...] For example, permission to use the GNU CLibrary in non-free
programs enables many more people to use the whole GNU operating
system, as well as its variant, the
This $&%$& demands everything to be labeled in away which credits him and
he does not stop before making completely wrong statements like "its
variant". I find this completely unacceptable and can assure everybody
that I consider none of the code I contributed to glibc (which is quite a
lot) to be as part of the GNU project and so a major part of what Stallman
claims credit for is simply going away.
This part has a morale, too, and it is almost the
same: don't trust this person. Read the licenses carefully and rip out
parts which give Stallman any possibility to influence your future.
[...] GNU Lesser General Public License as
published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2.1 of the
License, or (at your option) any later version.
just invites him to screw you when it pleases him. Rip out the "any later
version" part and make your own decisions when to use a different license
since otherwise he can potentially do you or your work harm.
Grendel: Again dammingly indicting stallman, "This $&%$& demands
everything to be labeled in away which credits him and he does not stop
before making completely wrong statements like "its variant"." WE all know
how obssed RMS is about getting credit for linux, IMHO LInus stole the
show from RMS with linus's kernel and RMS has never gotten over it.
And at the end,
I cannot see this repeating, though. Despite what Stallman believes,
maintaining a GNU project is NOT a privilege. It's a burden, and the
bigger the project the bigger the burden. I have no interest to allow
somebody else to tell me what to do and not to do if this is part of my
free time. There are plenty of others interesting things to do and I'll
immediately walk away from glibc if I see a situation like this coming up
again. I will always be able to fix my own system (and if the company I
work for wants it, their systems).
Grendel: THis is most sad for us programmers when a respected developer
says that "maintaining a GNU project is NOT a privilege. It's a burden",
its sad indeed.
ANyway personally I would NEVER make my project GNU, not would I care a
damn about the standards, after reading that "or later versions" bit I
might even consider releasing my program under another licence.
| /"__ ._ _ _ _| _ |`-. kalum delrom ro .-'(]__/|| |
| \__/ | (-'| |(_|(-'l_ `-===============-' [_] .-: |
all your chix are belong to us.
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]