> > Indeed I disagree. I'm not aware of any commercial interests on the FSF > > GCC side. As far as I can recall, the split was between the commercial > > interests on the EGCS side and the non-commercial interests on the FSF > > side. > > It was not anywhere near that simple; there were a number of disputes > that had nothing to do with commercial interests (particularly the very > sorry state of C++). If your interpretation were correct, then after > the split, the non-commercial idealists would have stayed with the FSF > side of the split, but this didn't happen for the most part.
I wasn't clear. I agree with you. What I meant was "to the extent that the split was motivated by commercial interests, I saw it as more commercial vs. non-commercial than two competing commercial interests", but indeed agree that was not the only (and probably not even the primary) reason for the split.
