Re: What is the relationship between GCC and Cygnus / Red Hat?

[Tom Lord <lord at emf dot net>]

	jbuck:

	> Agreed; the purpose was historical (it was widely alleged in
	> the egcs days that egcs was a plot by Cygnus to take over
	> gcc).

Isn't there a more accurate balance between the conspiracy theory take
and the conspiracy-denial take?

I think you are correct that Cygnus did not plot to "take over" gcc.

I also think that many core contributors to gcc worked, via egcs, to
end the then-traditional FSF-style of control over GCC.

There _was_ a power struggle there.  It'd be wrong to accuse Cygnus of
plotting.  It'd be wrong to paint it as an underhanded plot (it seemed
to bend over backwards to be just the opposite, imo).  It'd be wrong
to dredge up any old interpersonal issues among the personalities
involved.

But it was a power struggle.  It was an explicit attempt to change
project governance.   Some of the reasons some people wanted that
change were, in fact, related to commercial efforts (AFAICT).

There's no obvious good guys or bad guys in that history -- but it's
_interesting_.  It was a major development in the history of free
software.  It's important -- and from an outsider perspective, I'd
guess that everyone involved is now sufficiently distant from the
events to look at them pretty objectively.

By all means, edit the FAQ.  But please -- don't paint over history.
Perhaps this:  in the FAQ, the answer to this question:

  <h2><a name="cygnus">What is the relationship between GCC and Cygnus
  / Red Hat?</a></h2>

might be something like:

  At one time, that was a very controversial question.   It is 
  less controversial now.   Nevertheless, the events that raised the
  question have some historic interest for the free software movement.
  Some of this history has been recorded in "./EGCS-history".


And in "./EGCS-history" -- how about a paragraph or two from the
various people who were involved in egcs and the formation of the
steering commitee.   A first hand account from a slightly removed
perspective.   I'd give 40% odds that future historians will thank you
for your forsight.   Please consider inviting RMS to contribute a
section, if you go this route.

And anyway, such an attempt at objectivity and sober evaluation of
"how free software works" would be a lot more interesting (or at least
easier to interpret) than, say, jwz's account of the Lucent Emacs/GNU
Emacs schism and "why it is impossible to work with RMS".  No?

-t