On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 9:02 AM, Rahul Sundaram <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 06/05/2010 08:47 AM, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
> > wrong - you are under the mistaken impression that the GNU project has
> > developed and maintains the GNU toolchain. That is not correct. Many
> > individuals have done and are doing this - the only thing is that some of
> them
> > use the 'GNU' word. In fact, if I am not mistaken, Redhat maintains and
> > develops a good part of it. So without RMS and without GNU, the toolchain
> > would still exist and linux would still flourish. As far as I can see,
> those
> > projects that are directly developed and maintained by the GNU project do
> not
> > work properly and are mostly useless - like hurd.
> >
>
> Yes, Red Hat does maintain or contribute significantly to several GNU
> projects including coreutils, Glibc, GCC etc and while I understand
> your point, you seem to make a false distinction between directly and
> indirectly maintained projects from GNU. GNU is a umbrella effort of
> the FSF to create a completely free software environment and there is
> participation from volunteers and multiple organizations, commercial
> and otherwise. FSF doesn't employ anyone to directly to work on any of
> the GNU projects anymore although they did in the past. Some of the GNU
> projects are more successful than others but that is hardly remarkable.
>
> Rahul
>
>
Yes, I totally agree with Rahul..
We need to under that it was "Free software movement" and not "Free
software project".
Person who put tarch-light at starting point and visioned the things is
more important the followers and implementors. For the very same reason,
person who make a open standard specification is more important then open
source coder. For the very same reason, CEO who vision a technology is more
important then his employee. We put huge credit to Gandhi for Freedom Fight
but it doesn't exclude contribution to other.
Finally, we have Linus's Kernel with such a wide spread, just because
of GPL license. RMS was the one who wrote it and put some rule which define
software freedom. He RMS was not there, then there was no license. without
Public license, Linux will be another Window.
PS: http://twitter.com/schestowitz/status/15426972227
--
┌─────────────────────────┐
│ Narendra Sisodiya
│ http://narendrasisodiya.com
└─────────────────────────┘
_______________________________________________
ILUGC Mailing List:
http://www.ae.iitm.ac.in/mailman/listinfo/ilugc
