Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 10th Jan 2013 01:41 UTC, submitted by lucas_maximus
Talk, Rumors, X Versus Y "A senior OpenBSD developer has complained on a mailing list that upstream vendors of free and open source software are adding in changes without any thought of whether downstream users could adapt to the change. Marc Espie said this would hurt smaller players by not allowing them to keep up with the changes. Basically what is happening is that numerous changes are being made to Linux and smaller projects like OpenBSD cannot keep up with the changes. And, according to Espie, not all these changes are strictly necessary."
Thread beginning with comment 548095
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
kwan_e
Member since:
2007-02-18

"GNU extensions were not created to make the system incompatible, they were created for convenience. And I don't see why it should be up to upstream to spend extra work on supporting other platform.


Except other platforms don't want to include GPL code in their OS.
"

They don't have to. They can reimplement those GNU extensions. GPL covers only copyright, not reimplementation.

And it's not really GPL's fault that some people are too ideological to include GPL programs.

Reply Parent Score: 5

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

And it's not really GPL's fault that some people are too ideological to include GPL programs.


It's not <non-GPL compatible license>'s fault that some GPL folks are too ideological to include <licensed> programs.

Reply Parent Score: 4

kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

"And it's not really GPL's fault that some people are too ideological to include GPL programs.


It's not <non-GPL compatible license>'s fault that some GPL folks are too ideological to include <licensed> programs.
"

On the contrary. GPL folks have taken from BSD without fuss. ;)

Reply Parent Score: 4

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

But why does GNU have to create their own grep and sed etc instead of just using the BSD ones? Could it be...ideologic reasons? ;)

Reply Parent Score: 3

sec0ndshadow Member since:
2013-01-03

Because they wanted to add extensions? And NIH syndrome is a thing?

To paraphrase: Never attribute to malice that which can be attributed to the boredom of a developer.

Reply Parent Score: 1

kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

But why does GNU have to create their own grep and sed etc instead of just using the BSD ones? Could it be...ideologic reasons? ;)


I don't know. Did BSD grep and sed come before GNU grep and sed? From what I know, GNU was a reaction to proprietary programs for which source was unavailable. In that sense, it's not ideology but pragmatism to write something you have control over.

Reply Parent Score: 4

tidux Member since:
2011-08-13

GNU was designed to be a complete reimplementation of Unix that shared no code with AT&T or Berkeley. It's been that way since the 80s, and the "no copying from BSD" rule was essentially to keep the lawyers at bay.

Reply Parent Score: 5

Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

But why does GNU have to create their own grep and sed etc instead of just using the BSD ones? Could it be...ideologic reasons? ;)

In fairness, BSD wasn't open source when many GNU tools were first developed.

Reply Parent Score: 3

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

And it's not really GPL's fault that some people are too ideological to include GPL programs.


They were working their implementation to POSIX spec as it states in the article.

Reply Parent Score: 2

kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

They were working their implementation to POSIX spec as it states in the article.


But the POSIX spec does not forbid extensions. It would be a sad day if people can't make more than just the bare minimum.

Reply Parent Score: 4