[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: glibc and the Linux libc fork
From: |
Alexander Terekhov |
Subject: |
Re: glibc and the Linux libc fork |
Date: |
Tue, 19 Jun 2007 18:28:09 +0200 |
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:
> > http://www.cygwin.com/ml/libc-announce/2001/msg00000.html
>
> In response to a writing about a 1994-1997/8 event, you're pointing out an
> August 2001 event that lead to nothing?
http://fsfe.org/en/fellows/ciaran/ciaran_s_free_software_notes/history_of_glibc_and_linux_libc
You wrote:
: Elliot Lee's article says that while the Linux kernel developers
: were using their fork, glibc development stalled for a time. This
: coincides with the time that FSF spent working on version 2.0,
: during which there were no official releases for two years.
Drepper wrote:
: 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.
Drepper also wrote:
: ... 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.
regards,
alexander.
--
"Live cheaply," he said, offering some free advice. "Don't buy a house,
a car or have children. The problem is they're expensive and you have
to spend all your time making money to pay for them."
-- Free Software Foundation's Richard Stallman: 'Live Cheaply'