Could you be a little more specific about this? E.g. perhaps who, or at least how and who it effected how.
Briefly:
The ECGS schism was, in my view, purely and simply a successful effort to wrestle control over GCC away from the FSF. The FSF sought to develop GCC <i>for the aims of the GNU system</i> but a few firms, and their employees, sought to develop GCC for the aims of those proprietary software firms or the aims of proprietary software firms which were their customers.
The invention of "open source" was, in my view, purely an attempt to disassociate the resource of GNU source code and free software practices from the FSF's freedom mission. To put it crudely, and you can see this even in Raymond's original essays - they sought to recast the movement to give users software freedom into a movement to give business free labor.
After the Linux kernel started to take off there was, additionally, the non-trivial task of assembling complete and supported distributions. Although there was a community process underway that showed some promise (Debian), the firms that took the lead and grew quite large turned their back on that process, kept their system integration work internal and proprietary, and meanwhile solicited volunteers to work on other matters. That is to say that while the community might have been far further along by now than it is at distributing a decent GNU system, those firms fought (and won) to prevent that from happening.
Those are some examples. There are more but I did say I'd be brief.
I think it's quite disingenuous to describe the development model of Cygnus and RedHat as being more proprietary than how the FSF was doing things at the time. ESR is an epic douchebag, but he nailed y'all in his description of the FSF's development model in The Cathedral and the Bazaar.
At least Cygnus took input from contributors and even actually bothered to work on the project themselves. The audacity!
It's not disingenuous. When I was speaking "proprietary" I wasn't referring to Cygnus but rather to RedHat and other complete system distribution firms. Internally, they maintain a great deal of infrastructure to smooth the assembly of complete distributions. They maintain that proprietary infrastructure to have a competitive advantage. They decline to assist public projects with that assembly of a complete system.
That is there right, under law and free software licensing terms. Nevertheless, it is a wrong in the sense that they are refusing to help the community who has so benefited them, and actively attempting to keep the larger community from self-organizing to eliminate the need for that closely held infrastructure. These firms sing a song about the benefits of community cooperation but they do not practice what they preach. They take free labor from others. They give back labor in areas that are strategic to them. But they withhold labor that would actually advance software freedom in substantial ways.
Canonical did the same thing with Launchpad for five years before finally releasing the whole thing, including the build system (which was expected to be kept proprietary).
Heh. Yes, in the very early days of Canonical I chatted with Mark about the possibility of working there and that intention to closely hold some of the software I'd be working on was one of the red flags for me. In my view, it was partly because Canonical went down that path that GNU Arch got forked and horked (mainly by Canonical employees).
Briefly:
The ECGS schism was, in my view, purely and simply a successful effort to wrestle control over GCC away from the FSF. The FSF sought to develop GCC <i>for the aims of the GNU system</i> but a few firms, and their employees, sought to develop GCC for the aims of those proprietary software firms or the aims of proprietary software firms which were their customers.
The invention of "open source" was, in my view, purely an attempt to disassociate the resource of GNU source code and free software practices from the FSF's freedom mission. To put it crudely, and you can see this even in Raymond's original essays - they sought to recast the movement to give users software freedom into a movement to give business free labor.
After the Linux kernel started to take off there was, additionally, the non-trivial task of assembling complete and supported distributions. Although there was a community process underway that showed some promise (Debian), the firms that took the lead and grew quite large turned their back on that process, kept their system integration work internal and proprietary, and meanwhile solicited volunteers to work on other matters. That is to say that while the community might have been far further along by now than it is at distributing a decent GNU system, those firms fought (and won) to prevent that from happening.
Those are some examples. There are more but I did say I'd be brief.