3 ms·

It's worth pointing out that Steve Jobs at NeXT was a prime example of the benefits of a policy against proprietary linking as Jobs tried to have GCC be the bac

It's worth pointing out that Steve Jobs at NeXT was a prime example of the benefits of a policy against proprietary linking as Jobs tried to have GCC be the backend of their (NeXT's) proprietary ObjectiveC front end. He (Jobs) was not allowed to do this due to the licencing (GPL) which is what led to GCC getting a ObjectiveC frontend merged which was then available to all GCC users. Had Jobs had his way, only NeXT users would have had the benefit of the ObjectiveC front end while NeXT would have enjoyed the benefits of the GCC backend.

nzp 13y ago
Well, when you spin it like that... I'm no Steve Jobs apologist, but I think it's important to get the facts straight. NeXT wanted to distribute the frontend as .o files which the user would link with the backend, true. Now, the way you present it makes it seems as though NeXT was hell bent on having a proprietary frontend, but were strongarmed by the GPL to release under the GPL. What actually happened is that Jobs asked RMS if he thought it would be OK to distribute the frontend as .o files, to which Stallman said that it probably would be OK (from a legal standpoint), but then consulted a lawyer who told him that the judge would probably think this is not OK. So RMS then tells Jobs that FSF believes this is not allowed by the GPL. Then NeXT produces GPLed frontend. Notice how smooth all of this went. No attempts of subversion by NeXT or disputing FSF's opinion, they asked, were given a legally worthless negative opinion which they accepted and produced a free frontend. So yes, technically it happened because of the GPL (but only on an assumption that the judge would accept FSF's lawyer reasoning) but based on what actually happened there is no evidence of Jobs wanting to "have his way". If Jobs "hated" "our freedom" and the GPL was the only thing that stood between us and slavery as RMS likes to think, this would unlikely go without any friction whatsoever. Sources for what happened: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pragmatic.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pragmatic.html http://www.tikirobot.net/wp/2008/11/22/why-gcc-has-a-free-objective-c-frontend/ http://www.tikirobot.net/wp/2008/11/22/why-gcc-has-a-free-ob... EDIT: Another source, the first paragraph is telling: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/gnu.misc.discuss/_pBZdo_bXPc https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/gnu.misc.discuss/_pB...

nzp 13y ago

Well, when you spin it like that... I'm no Steve Jobs apologist, but I think it's important to get the facts straight. NeXT wanted to distribute the frontend as .o files which the user would link with the backend, true. Now, the way you present it makes it seems as though NeXT was hell bent on having a proprietary frontend, but were strongarmed by the GPL to release under the GPL. What actually happened is that Jobs asked RMS if he thought it would be OK to distribute the frontend as .o files, to which Stallman said that it probably would be OK (from a legal standpoint), but then consulted a lawyer who told him that the judge would probably think this is not OK. So RMS then tells Jobs that FSF believes this is not allowed by the GPL. Then NeXT produces GPLed frontend. Notice how smooth all of this went. No attempts of subversion by NeXT or disputing FSF's opinion, they asked, were given a legally worthless negative opinion which they accepted and produced a free frontend. So yes, technically it happened because of the GPL (but only on an assumption that the judge would accept FSF's lawyer reasoning) but based on what actually happened there is no evidence of Jobs wanting to "have his way". If Jobs "hated" "our freedom" and the GPL was the only thing that stood between us and slavery as RMS likes to think, this would unlikely go without any friction whatsoever. Sources for what happened: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pragmatic.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pragmatic.html http://www.tikirobot.net/wp/2008/11/22/why-gcc-has-a-free-objective-c-frontend/ http://www.tikirobot.net/wp/2008/11/22/why-gcc-has-a-free-ob... EDIT: Another source, the first paragraph is telling: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/gnu.misc.discuss/_pBZdo_bXPc https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/gnu.misc.discuss/_pB...