Pablo Manalastas said: > So to require that Linux > distributions be called GNU/Linux is dictatorial > on the part of RMS.
Now we see where MS gets off calling GNU leftist/communistic/'anti-american'... :-D RMS should be thankful enough as it is that Linus chose the GNU utilities instead of say, the BSD ones (which would serve the purpose equally well), and thus, because of that decision, GNU is as popular as it is now. RMS' quirks often affect the quality of the software he writes as well - case in point would be GCC-Objective C which can't leave the Objective C standard well enough alone. You can't use the very common and standard #import directive without being forced to read a multi-line error/warning diatribe (for each occurence!) about why the author (if not RMS, then a like-minded disciple) thinks said construct is a bad idea. Hardly what I would call egoless programming. Speaking as a programmer, I find that stuff like this and RMS' intractable attitude greatly detract from the appeal of GNU software. Apparently, the XEmacs (http://www.xemacs.org/About/XEmacsVsGNUemacs.html , http://www.jwz.org/doc/lemacs.html , etc...) developers have also had a taste of RMS' curmudgeonly ways and decided to forego cooperating with the guy. > He is fighting for the IDEAL of "freedom" to study > the source code and improve it. BSD and MPL-style licenses reflect this ideal just as much and without the corresponding "holier-than-thou" attitude. It's interesting to note how companies like Trolltech and MySQL find that the GNU license as-is is clearly not viable for commercial purposes and have resorted to dual licensing their offerings. Rafael Sevilla said: > If there were no "extremist" FSF led by Stallman, > it would be quite likely that the more moderate > factions such as the open source movement would > probably have sold out their principles to corporate > money long ago. Like ESR? :-) Anyway, I don't believe we necessarily need extremists to help counter 'people compromising their principles'. Open source has been around long before RMS came on the scene and the people who truly believe in the concept have continued contributing such software with or without RMS and the GPL. RMS and GPL have their places in the free software community, but they are far from being the be-all and end-all of it. Look at the Delphi components scene for which many purveyors have been supplying source code for their components without any regard for the GPL or what RMS seems to consider gospel truths. They do so simply because it is a good idea and commercially viable for them to do so (the nature of Delphi development makes offering source code for your components a compelling advantage over competitors who don't). _ Philippine Linux Users Group. Web site and archives at http://plug.linux.org.ph To leave: send "unsubscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe to the Linux Newbies' List: send "subscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
