Re: Accusations, accusations, always accusations

[Richard Stallman]

This thread seems to be about giving credit to the GNU effort, while the
above statement suggest that Linus' contribution was just a snap or some
strike of luck.

That's exactly what it was.  Linus was not aiming or planning to help
complete a free operating system.  He wrote a kernel for completely
different reasons.  The fact that it was then useful for producing a
free operating system was a happy accident in terms of his motives.

I don't consider this a criticism; some of my projects, such as the
original Emacs, were happy accidents too.

 Is it really necessary to play down some one else's
contribution to justify the GNU/Linux name?

I am sorry you feel that this is "playing down".  Pointing out the
reasons why Linus wrote Linux does not alter the merits of Linux as a
technical contribution.  My point is about how a different
contribution, the vision of a complete free system, came from the GNU
Project.

Re: Accusations, accusations, always accusations

[Richard Stallman]

This thread seems to be about giving credit to the GNU effort, while the
above statement suggest that Linus' contribution was just a snap or some
strike of luck.

That's exactly what it was.  Linus was not aiming or planning to help
complete a free operating system.  He wrote a kernel for essentially
personal reasons.  The fact that it was then useful for producing a
free operating system was a happy accident in terms of his motives.

I don't consider this a criticism of his work; some of the projects
I'm known for, such as the original Emacs, were happy accidents too.

But if the question at hand is "Why do we have a free operating
system", it is relevant that the GNU system was working toward that
goal while Linus was not.  It was no accident that we wrote so many of
the essential components of the system.

If GNU is an operating system, why do we have to call it GNU/Linux? Why
not just GNU? Based on your arguments that would be more appropriate.

If you want the shortest possible legitimate name, that is "GNU".  I
prefer "GNU/Linux" partly because it gives Linus credit too.

Re: Accusations, accusations, always accusations

[Richard Stallman]

Okay, then what is an operating system?  The Gospel of Tux defines it as
the Kernel, the Libraries, and the Utilities, 

The term "utilities" implies, to me, small programs that do certain
kinds of jobs--for example, cp and grep.  I would not think of GCC or
Emacs, or the shell, or ftpd, as "utilities".  So I think it is
misleading to use that word to mean "any executable you could run in a
process." 

  but it seems hard to tell
which are part of GNU and which are merely free software distributed by
the FSF and capable of executing on a GNU system.

Whether you call the system "Linux" or "GNU/Linux", it is not clear
just what is part of it.  Over the years, many useful packages that
are not essential (and therefore did not need to be present initially)
have been added, and some are included in certain versions of
GNU/Linux and excluded from others.  So this fuzziness is not a matter
of our uncertainty about the system.  It is part of the nature of the
system.

Another kind of uncertainty applis to the GNU system in 1991.  Since
it was not yet operational (it had no kernel), we could not start
to make an actual distribution which you could point at and say
"Here's what is in the GNU system."

But a number of things were definitely part of the GNU system at the
time when Linux was written.  They included the compilation tools,
GDB, Bash, the C library, Emacs and some free version of vi, X11, TeX
and Texinfo, Ghostscript, lots of GNU utilities, the BSD network
utilities and demons, Sendmail and potentially Smail, and Ispell.
That is what I can remember now; there were many others.

Re: Accusations, accusations, always accusations

[Csaba Szigetvari]

---We got almost there, then Linus Torvalds added the missing piece 
---and finished the job.  So we did succeed, although many others 
---helped.

This thread seems to be about giving credit to the GNU effort, while the
above statement suggest that Linus' contribution was just a snap or some
strike of luck. Is it really necessary to play down some one else's
contribution to justify the GNU/Linux name?

---GNU as an operating system
---is a success under the the name "Linux".

If GNU is an operating system, why do we have to call it GNU/Linux? Why
not just GNU? Based on your arguments that would be more appropriate.


---Csaba Szigetvári

Re: Accusations, accusations, always accusations

[Richard Stallman]

> That page includes the *list* of GNU software packages.  But the
> general definition is, a GNU package is a program that is released
> under the aegis of the GNU Project.

But GTK is not on that list, yet is part of GNU.

Right, the list is not entirely accurate.
(I will ask the webmasters to list GTK.)

Also, it is a list of GNU packages, and the GNU system is not
just composed of GNU packages.

Re: Accusations, accusations, always accusations

[Richard Stallman]

What I'd like to hear is some sane rationale for Richard "I just
want everybody to be free" Stallman's petty insistence that he be
allowed to name someone else's product.  How free is that?  

We did more to develop this system than anyone else, and so it
is natural that we should be listened to regarding its name.

Calling the system "Linux" gives people the impression that it is
"someone else's product", and that's precisely why it shouldn't
be called that.

Re: Accusations, accusations, always accusations

[Richard Stallman]

Yes, the GNU Project set out to develop an operating system.

It has, so far, failed to do so.

We got almost there, then Linus Torvalds added the missing piece and
finished the job.  So we did succeed, although many others helped.

  (Though the HURD is finally coming
together, from what I hear.

The HURD (plus Mach) is a kernel, like Linux.  It runs, but it is not
really usable yet.  I hope that the HURD will eventually be a useful
piece of software, and that its advanced architecture will provide
benefits.  But the kernel is not so specially important; whether or
not the GNU kernel becomes a success, GNU as an operating system
is a success under the the name "Linux".

Re: Accusations, accusations, always accusations

[John Cowan]

Richard Stallman scripsit:

> GNU is the name of an operating system.  (This is what the GNU Project
> set out to develop.)  Something is part of GNU if it is part of that
> system.

Okay, then what is an operating system?  The Gospel of Tux defines it as
the Kernel, the Libraries, and the Utilities, but it seems hard to tell
which are part of GNU and which are merely free software distributed by
the FSF and capable of executing on a GNU system.

> That page includes the *list* of GNU software packages.  But the
> general definition is, a GNU package is a program that is released
> under the aegis of the GNU Project.

But GTK is not on that list, yet is part of GNU.  Ditto GNOME.
TeX and X are not released under the aegis of the GNU Project,
but http://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html says they are part
of the GNU system.  I'm just wondering if there exists a formally
blessed enumeration of the parts of GNU.

-- 
John Cowan   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   I am a member of a civilization. --David Brin

Re: Accusations, accusations, always accusations

[Csaba Szigetvari]

---If Linus
---had not existed, we would eventually have provided a kernel.  If we
---had not existed, Linus would not have provided the rest of the 
---system, because but it was not his goal to produce one.

It's impossible to tell what would had happen if Linus had not existed.
It is also impossible to tell what Linus would have done 
in a world without Richard Stallman. 

During the last 10 years there have been a lot initiatives for creating
free operating systems - GNU, Linux (or GNU/Linux), BSD are but a few of
them. Even Dennis Ritchie is creating a system on his own. There's a lot
of interest in creating and using free operating systems and this
interest wasn't created by Richard Stallman or Linus Torvalds - it was
there already, because it makes sense to have something like this. Most
of the alternatives do never get much attention, do not succeed in
building up a community or just die because other free systems have
become available and provide the results that are needed.

My point is: if Linus or the GNU system would have not existed, someone
else might have done it as well. This doesn't mean that creating an OS
is easy (it's not), but I have a hard time to believe that without Linus
Torvalds and Richard Stallmann the world would be doomed.



---Csaba Szigetvári

Re: Accusations, accusations, always accusations

[Andrew J Bromage]

G'day all.

Quoting Andrew J Bromage ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):

> > Even though I find this debate rather off-topic and would love to get
> > back to licence discussion, I'd be interested in seeing a true line
> > count of the source for some standard Linux system (say, Debian with
> > only the compulsory packages installed) to see what proportion of code
> > is in fact GNU software.

On Sat, Oct 23, 1999 at 11:42:37PM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:

> Runs the risk of accidentally assuming that each line of code is equally 
> significant.

That's true.  Some lines of code are run more than others, and some
are I suspect that gethostbyaddr() is much much harder to write than
printf(), for example, so printf() should probably be given fewer
significance points.  However an assembler, while being straightforward
(in principle) to write, may deserve significance points because it's
so fundamental to programming.  Plus there's the problem of what
programs are more important than others.  (Personally, every time I've
installed Debian, to pick but one, the first thing I did was deleted
emacs, but others might consider that piece of software essential.
Every time I've installed FreeBSD, the first thing I did was installed
bash, so there. )

Oh, and it also runs the risk of being a total waste of time, just like
this discussion. :-)

Cheers,
Andrew Bromage

Re: Accusations, accusations, always accusations

[Chip Salzenberg]

According to Richard Stallman:
> GNU is the name of an operating system.  (This is what the GNU
> Project set out to develop.)  Something is part of GNU if it is part
> of that system.

Yes, the GNU Project set out to develop an operating system.

It has, so far, failed to do so.  (Though the HURD is finally coming
together, from what I hear.  Congratulations.)

Meanwhile, other people took bits of things from here and there and,
in combination with the Linux kernel, succeeded in developing an
operating system.  They call it "Linux" -- more specifically, "Red Hat
Linux", "Slackware Linux", etc.

Their products, their names.  Deal.
-- 
Chip Salzenberg - a.k.a. -  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
   "I am the Lemon Zester of Destruction!"  //MST3K

Re: Accusations, accusations, always accusations

[Nick Moffitt]

Quoting Pete Schaeffer:
> Of course he'll point out that, yes, we can call things whatever
> we want; that we can be wayward children and call Linux Linux if
> we're so perverse; that he's only trying to show us the Light of
> Truth and the error of our ways; that until we turn, he will
> dilligently keep correcting us; ; that he's bound to fight our
> heterodoxy and convert us infidels; but that he still, always,
> forever wants us to stay free.  Nice of him.  

Don't MAKE me quote Voltaire on you, boy!
 
> Richard is an ace, prime, bone-deep fundamentalist.  This is a
> comment not on his character, but his actions (fundamentalism is
> about what you do, not what you believe).  It's all about
> doctrine with him, not ideas; about adherence rather than
> understanding; about quieting, rather than convincing, his
> correspondent.  If it's good to free source, it's wrong to limit
> discourse; but Richard doesn't discuss, he asserts.  He doesn't
> respond, he restates.  There's no conversation with him.  

Pete is engaging in ace, prime, bone-deep name calling.  Not
content with arguing a point on its own merit, he takes the stance
"Whether or not your point has merit, YOU ARE AN IDEOLOGUE!" and wants
to declare the debate over.

With respect, I'd like to see the end of this conversation, as
it's not accomplishing anything (certainly not license review).

-- 
((lambda (x) (list x (list (quote quote) x)))
(quote (lambda (x) (list x (list (quote quote) x)
-- A LISP quine written by Seth David Schoen
+++ath

Re: Accusations, accusations, always accusations

[Pete Schaeffer]

On Sat, 23 Oct 1999, Alejandro Forero Cuervo wrote:

> All of the guts of the OS are contrary to the thing that the FSF
> has been working toward.
> 
> When you go into the shell and you type `ls', you are using GNU utilities
> to do the job. 

[snip]

Sigh.  I know.  IknowIknowIknow.  What, you think this is news?
What I'd like to hear is some sane rationale for Richard "I just
want everybody to be free" Stallman's petty insistence that he be
allowed to name someone else's product.  How free is that?  

Of course he'll point out that, yes, we can call things whatever
we want; that we can be wayward children and call Linux Linux if
we're so perverse; that he's only trying to show us the Light of
Truth and the error of our ways; that until we turn, he will
dilligently keep correcting us; ; that he's bound to fight our
heterodoxy and convert us infidels; but that he still, always,
forever wants us to stay free.  Nice of him.  

Richard is an ace, prime, bone-deep fundamentalist.  This is a
comment not on his character, but his actions (fundamentalism is
about what you do, not what you believe).  It's all about
doctrine with him, not ideas; about adherence rather than
understanding; about quieting, rather than convincing, his
correspondent.  If it's good to free source, it's wrong to limit
discourse; but Richard doesn't discuss, he asserts.  He doesn't
respond, he restates.  There's no conversation with him.  

So watch this:  

Re: Accusations, accusations, always accusations

[Richard Stallman]

When people talk only about which specific programs come from the GNU
Project, that's a basic misunderstanding of what we produced.

Many people and groups developed programs that are in the GNU/Linux
system today.  Most of them did their work because they wanted to
write a program to do X, Y or Z.  So when we judge their
contributions, we naturally look at what programs they developed, and
what those programs are useful for.

The GNU Project alone among these contributors had a higher-order
goal: to make a whole free operating system.  To do this, we had to
write lots of programs.  But unlike the other contributors, we were
not *just* writing programs.  They were steps in developing an
operating system--essentially the system that most people call "Linux".

Calling the operating system "Linux" gives the impression that the GNU
Project was *just* about writing a bunch programs, and that suggests
one should judge our work in terms of *just* the individual programs.
That's missing the forest for the trees.  (It still comes out that we
planted more of the trees than anyone else did.)

Re: Accusations, accusations, always accusations

[Richard Stallman]

Is GTK part of the GNU project?  I thought it was part of the GIMP
project.

GIMP is part of the GNU Project too.

This would include any embedded system, anything written exclusively
for a GUI, any daemon, anything which can use sfio (e.g. Perl),
anything written in a language other than C...

These programs may not use printf, but they surely use libc.
Which means, in GNU/Linux, that they are using GNU libc.

In particular, the ucLinux project isn't interested in distributing
any of these tools since they're not important to have on your Palm
Pilot.

It sounds like they are making a system quite different from the usual
"Linux" system.  Perhaps the only thing the two have in common is the
kernel.

If they are that different, calling the usual systems GNU/Linux could
be a good way to make it clear how different they are.

Re: Accusations, accusations, always accusations

[Richard Stallman]

The biggest problem I have with this is that the thought of this name
change didn't occur to you until six years after "Linux" was released.

That computation yields 1997, but I have been talking about GNU/Linux
for longer than that.  Probably since 1995, or maybe before.

It's far too late...

It isn't too late for some people to change.  Even since a year ago, a
number of people have started using the term "GNU/Linux", and I am
confident that more will do so in the future.  It is never too late
for any person to start doing this--it is just a matter of whether
you believe it is the proper thing to do.

Re: Accusations, accusations, always accusations

[Richard Stallman]

However, if the system had been called
GNU/Linux, the media would instead fasten the credit and glamour onto
Linus Torvalds and Richard Stallman.

That might happen to some extent.

 While this is more equitable since
you and the GNU system are a major component of Linux, it still doesn't
achieve your goal of equal billing for the GNU system itself.

Not directly.  But it would certainly give me the opportunity to tell
people about the GNU system, and pass along the credit to the rest of
the GNU Project.

Re: Accusations, accusations, always accusations

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Andrew J Bromage ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):

> Even though I find this debate rather off-topic and would love to get
> back to licence discussion, I'd be interested in seeing a true line
> count of the source for some standard Linux system (say, Debian with
> only the compulsory packages installed) to see what proportion of code
> is in fact GNU software.

Runs the risk of accidentally assuming that each line of code is equally 
significant.

-- 
Cheers, "Heedless of grammar, they all cried 'It's him!'"
Rick Moen   -- R.H. Barham, _Misadventure at Margate_
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Accusations, accusations, always accusations

[Andrew J Bromage]

G'day all.

On Sun, Oct 24, 1999 at 12:26:36AM -0400, delirium4U wrote:

> I was under the impression that GIMP itself was part of the GNU project,

Whoops, so it is.  I didn't see GTK on the list of FSF software, so
I jumped to conclusions.  I stand corrected.

Even though I find this debate rather off-topic and would love to get
back to licence discussion, I'd be interested in seeing a true line
count of the source for some standard Linux system (say, Debian with
only the compulsory packages installed) to see what proportion of code
is in fact GNU software.  It's a non-trivial task precisely because of
the problem of determining the provenance of each sub-component of a
given package.  For example, glibc is a combination of GNU project code
plus other stuff bundled from BSD, LinuxThreads, a lot of Sun code and
recently some Mach code too.

Cheers,
Andrew Bromage

Re: Accusations, accusations, always accusations

[delirium4U]

> Is GTK part of the GNU project?  I thought it was part of the GIMP
> project.

I was under the impression that GIMP itself was part of the GNU project, making the 
debate moot.  Doesn't the G in GIMP stand for GNU?  Perhaps the preponderance of 
GNU-affiliated acronymed projects starting with the letter G (GNOME, GPG, etc.) is 
confusing me, but I've always associated GIMP with GNU...

-Mark [Trepidity]

Re: Accusations, accusations, always accusations

[Alejandro Forero Cuervo]

This would include any embedded system, anything written exclusively
for a GUI, any daemon, anything which can use sfio (e.g. Perl),
anything written in a language other than C...

I'd think that around 90% or more of the programs out there depend in
one way or another on functions in the standard C library and would not
work without it.

You are right about Linux pthreads. I don't know about the origins of
malloc and inet_addr, I just think I saw them defined in Glibc.

Is GTK part of the GNU project?  I thought it was part of the
GIMP project.  GNOME is part of the GNU project, but more Linux
distributions (particularly those with commercial support) are
pushing KDE than are pushing GNOME.  Oh, and of course the XWindow
implementation that you tend to find on Linux systems is of course
not part of the GNU project.

GTK is part of GNOME. True, GTK started as the widget set for GIMP,
but IIRC, these days it is the central piece of GNOME (I could be wrong,
I have never used GNOME). One way or the other it is still part of the
GNU project (GIMP is part of the GNU project too).  It has competition
but in those distributions where it is used, I'd say it is part of the
guts of the system... just like WindowMaker.

Alejo.
http://bachue.com/alejo

--
The mere formulation of a problem is far more essential than its solution.
  -- Albert Einstein.



 PGP signature

Re: Accusations, accusations, always accusations

[Andrew J Bromage]

G'day all.

Disclaimer: I'm not on anyone's side in this debate.  I just noticed
quite a few factual errors in this post.  I'm also not a Linux
worshipper, and definitely think the Hurd has more promise as far as
operating systems go.  Now read on...

On Sat, Oct 23, 1999 at 01:38:35PM -0500, Alejandro Forero Cuervo wrote:

> When any program calls printf, fopen, pthread_create, malloc, inet_addr
> and many other functions, the program is, more than likely, using code
> coming from the GNU project.

The Linux pthread_create is not from the GNU project, but rather is
the LinuxThreads package imported.  All the inet stuff is BSD code
(and hence BSD licenced).  Malloc is a GNU adaption of Doug Lea's
implementation (the GNU project added the multithreading support).
So of the five that you mention, two could be considered "code coming
from the GNU project".

> How far do you think the Linux kernel would
> get with no implementation of printf? How many programs do you think
> would run?

Any program written for a system with no console, written not to use
a console or written not to use stdio, I should think.

This would include any embedded system, anything written exclusively
for a GUI, any daemon, anything which can use sfio (e.g. Perl),
anything written in a language other than C...

Oh, and the kernel comes with its own implementation (customise for
use in a kernel) anyway.  See /usr/src/linux/lib/vsprintf.c for details.

> How many programs would build with no make, shell, textutils (ie cat),
> shell utiles (ie cd, sleep, echo), sed or C/C++ compiler?

Most computers which exist in the world have never been used to build
software.  Who was it who said that Unix was a nice OS for software
development and that's about all? :-)

In particular, the ucLinux project isn't interested in distributing
any of these tools since they're not important to have on your Palm
Pilot.

> Are things such as GNOME not part of the guts of the system (in those
> workstations where XWindows is considered a standard part of the system
> and programs depend of calls to, say, GTK)?

Is GTK part of the GNU project?  I thought it was part of the GIMP
project.  GNOME is part of the GNU project, but more Linux distributions
(particularly those with commercial support) are pushing KDE than are
pushing GNOME.  Oh, and of course the XWindow implementation that you
tend to find on Linux systems is of course not part of the GNU project.

> I'd think it is clear that the guts of the system were written by the
> GNU project over anyone else.

You may be right, but I think you picked bad examples.

Cheers,
Andrew Bromage

Re: Accusations, accusations, always accusations

[Donnie Barnes]

> Whether we agree that demanding renaming of software in order to
> emphasize credit is justified is unclear to me. 
> 
> The system's name has been GNU ever since we started it 15 years ago.
> I think it was uncool for people to rename it to "Linux",
> so I am suggesting "GNU/Linux" as a compromise.

The biggest problem I have with this is that the thought of this name
change didn't occur to you until six years after "Linux" was released.

It's far too late...


--Donnie

--
  Donnie Barnes  http://www.donniebarnes.com  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  "Bah."
   Challenge Diversity.  Ignore People.  Live Life.  Use Linux.  879. V. 
"They say that nobody is perfect. Then they tell you practice makes 
  perfect. I wish they'd make up their minds." -- Wilt Chamberlain

Re: Accusations, accusations, always accusations

[Alejandro Forero Cuervo]

All of the guts of the OS are contrary to the thing that the FSF
has been working toward.

When you go into the shell and you type `ls', you are using GNU utilities
to do the job. Granted, you may not consider them the `guts' of the OS,
but now consider...

When any program calls printf, fopen, pthread_create, malloc, inet_addr
and many other functions, the program is, more than likely, using code
coming from the GNU project. How far do you think the Linux kernel would
get with no implementation of printf? How many programs do you think
would run?

How many programs would build with no make, shell, textutils (ie cat),
shell utiles (ie cd, sleep, echo), sed or C/C++ compiler? In most
GNU/Linux distributions this utilities come from the GNU project.

Are things such as GNOME not part of the guts of the system (in those
workstations where XWindows is considered a standard part of the system
and programs depend of calls to, say, GTK)? Is the widget set not part
of the guts of the system?

I'd think it is clear that the guts of the system were written by the
GNU project over anyone else.

Alejo.
http://bachue.com/alejo

--
The mere formulation of a problem is far more essential than its solution.
  -- Albert Einstein.



 PGP signature

Re: Accusations, accusations, always accusations

[Richard Stallman]

Dammit, Richard, that's nonsense and you know it.  Linux is not
what you envisioned 15 years ago.

The "Linux" system is basically the GNU system, which is the system we
started working for.  To be sure, the GNU system is not entirely as I
envisioned it 15 years ago: over time, plans change.

All of the guts of the OS
are contrary to the thing that the FSF has been working toward.

Most of the guts are exactly what we have been working toward; in
fact, most of the guts of this system come from the GNU Project.

The kernel is an entirely different design from what the FSF is
trying to accomplish.

Yes, it is a different kernel, but the kernel is just a part
of the guts of the system.

You've created a bunch of tools -- sure, sure, vital ones, we
know and nobody's denying it -- that can be compiled and used
under just about any OS under the sun.

We did write a number of tools, but that is just a part of the
larger job we did: developing a free operating system.

Re: Accusations, accusations, always accusations

[Alex Nicolaou]

Richard Stallman wrote:

> So when the media think that Linus is responsible, they are making
> an error of substance.
> 
> One of the reasons to call the system "GNU/Linux" instead of just
> "Linux" is to help prevent that mistake.

I wholeheartedly agree that this is, as you put it, an error of
substance on the media's part. However, if the system had been called
GNU/Linux, the media would instead fasten the credit and glamour onto
Linus Torvalds and Richard Stallman. While this is more equitable since
you and the GNU system are a major component of Linux, it still doesn't
achieve your goal of equal billing for the GNU system itself. Perhaps it
would put you in a better position to spread the GNU philosophy, though.

I also agree that the error is irking. However, I think it is human
nature to look to individuals and not systems when looking for
leadership or assigning credit. For this reason I would not blame the
media, since I see a root cause in basic human behaviour. (However, I
don't mean to imply that you are blaming the media; only that you hope
to have people think and behave in a way that they do not: namely, by
giving equal credit to a system and a person.) I do not think this is
changing the subject, since the subject is "How should the GNU project
get a fair share of the credit?" In the final analysis we must agree to
disagree about whether pushing for a name change in the system is the
right way to acquire more credit. I argue that it erodes the credibility
of you personally and may even motivate people to move away from using
the GNU system; whereas you argue that it is the right thing and imply
that it has worked for you thus far. So it seems that our positions are
set too firmly for either to convince the other what is right.

The only suggestion I have that remains is that you would do well to
convince those who are closest to you to argue on your behalf, and enter
the argument personally as little as possible. Since actually succeeding
in changing the name will accrue you personally a great deal of credit
and media attention, it is better if the name change is pushed by others
and not by you personally. Otherwise, many people will unfairly assume
the worst about you and your intentions.

alex

Re: Accusations, accusations, always accusations

[Richard Stallman]

So, I would claim that the GNU project will never get equal billing with
Linus.

With all due respect, I think you have changed the subject.  You are
now making a prediction about what other people *will* do.  I don't
think it is useful to discuss what "other people will do" for a
question of right and wrong where each individual can decide what to
do.

As a factual matter, some people do give us equal billing,
while many others do not.  But you (and each person reading this)
can make your own choice--you can do whichever you think is right,
no matter what any one else is doing.

I offer people reasons to persuade people why the name GNU/Linux is
the right thing; I hope they will agree, and decide to use it.

Re: Accusations, accusations, always accusations

[Richard Stallman]

 Cygnus gets credit for extending win32. Where's the credit for
GNU? All things considered, it should be called GNUwin32, 

You make a good case for that, and I think you are right.

I care more about the "Linux" system than about Cygwin32, because
"Linux" is basically the system that the GNU Project aimed to develop.
Cygwin32 is just a side issue, an add-on for a proprietary system.

They get the credit because the media fastens on them as the driving
force behind this mysterious, new market phenomenon: that free software
can run 50% of the servers on the "information highway", and that maybe
Microsoft isn't the only source of software after all.

The GNU Project is the chief reason for this.  Many people and
projects contributed programs that are in the system, but we alone had
the goal of making a complete 100% free operating system.  If Linus
had not existed, we would eventually have provided a kernel.  If we
had not existed, Linus would not have provided the rest of the system,
because but it was not his goal to produce one.

So when the media think that Linus is responsible, they are making
an error of substance.

One of the reasons to call the system "GNU/Linux" instead of just
"Linux" is to help prevent that mistake.

Re: Accusations, accusations, always accusations

[Richard Stallman]

Is what is "part of GNU" and what is simply "GNU-compatible" defined
explicitly somewhere?

GNU is the name of an operating system.  (This is what the GNU Project
set out to develop.)  Something is part of GNU if it is part of that
system.

"GNU-compatible" is not a term I use, so I don't have a
definition for it.

http://www.gnu.org/software/software.html disclaims completeness.

That page includes the *list* of GNU software packages.  But the
general definition is, a GNU package is a program that is released
under the aegis of the GNU Project.

See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html for a list
of definitions of categories of software.

Re: Accusations, accusations, always accusations

[Pete Schaeffer]

On Fri, 22 Oct 1999, Richard Stallman wrote:

> Whether we agree that demanding renaming of software in order to
> emphasize credit is justified is unclear to me. 
> 
> The system's name has been GNU ever since we started it 15 years ago.
> I think it was uncool for people to rename it to "Linux",
> so I am suggesting "GNU/Linux" as a compromise.

Dammit, Richard, that's nonsense and you know it.  Linux is not
what you envisioned 15 years ago.  It's not what you worked
toward, not what you designed, not what you wanted and, most
important, it's not what you built!  All of the guts of the OS
are contrary to the thing that the FSF has been working toward.
The kernel is an entirely different design from what the FSF is
trying to accomplish.  Your persistence in trying to co-opt what
isn't yours, to grab credit for something you didn't do, is the
very height of bad manners.  

You've created a bunch of tools -- sure, sure, vital ones, we
know and nobody's denying it -- that can be compiled and used
under just about any OS under the sun.  What possible rationale
can you give for choosing Linux out of all of them and trying to
call it GNU?  

A sane rationale, I mean.  Not the tripe you've been yammering on
about for lo these too many years.  

-- 
Pete Schaeffer

Why oh why didn't I take the _blue_ pill?

Re: Accusations, accusations, always accusations

[Richard Stallman]

Whether we agree that demanding renaming of software in order to
emphasize credit is justified is unclear to me. 

The system's name has been GNU ever since we started it 15 years ago.
I think it was uncool for people to rename it to "Linux",
so I am suggesting "GNU/Linux" as a compromise.

Re: Accusations, accusations, always accusations

[Alex Nicolaou]

Richard Stallman wrote:
> 
> I find the two quite similar actually. Cygwin32 is gcc & company, bash,
> and a standard set of file utilities (ls, tar, ...). From the user's
> perspective, it transforms their NT system into a system where the
> shells look and act just like UNIX shells.
> 
> You're talking about "the user's perspective", what the system
> looks like.  I'm talking about what it is made of.
> 
> Judging from your description, adding Cygwin32 to Windows makes is a
> system that looks somewhat like GNU/Linux (or equally, somewhat like
> Unix).  But it still has all of Windows in it.

No, I'm talking about what Cygwin32 is made of, not what's in the whole
operating system. And Cygwin32 is made of a porting layer that supports
UNIX-style tools on top of the win32 API. All of the UNIX style tools
shipping with cygwin are GNU tools: it is the GNU sytem sitting on top
of the porting layer to make it run on win32. Now, let's look at the
name: Cyg-Win32. So, the Win32 part is the Win32 API - not exactly the
windows kernel but widely considered the standard windows programming
interface (I'll ignore the fact that it is not a real API since every
version of windows subsets it: it is, after all, from Microsoft and
can't be expected to be a high quality specification). So win32 gets
credit. Cygnus gets credit for extending win32. Where's the credit for
GNU? All things considered, it should be called GNUwin32, since what it
does is allow GNU programs to run on top of the win32 API. It does this
by providing the kernel interface that the GNU programs expect. Linux
does the exact same job for naked hardware: it provides the GNU system
programs with the right API so that they can run. 

So, you see why I think it is so similar. If anything, there's a lot
less owrk in Cygwin32 than in Linux, so the GNU system portion is
proportionately much larger. It really is GNUwin32, or GNU/Cygwin32, but
it isn't called that.

Now, I don't think it needs to be called that. I think that it is
sufficient to give the GNU system credit in the software. But I think
that for both cases. So that is why I am puzzled that the proponents of
GNU/Linux don't insist that it is called GNU/Cygwin32: the two are very,
very similar. The only real difference is that in the cygwin case
there's also windows, but that's not a problem since the win32
developers have already got their credit - right in the name of the
software.

>  While doing this work, one can't help but
> notice that Cygwin32 is effectively a method for porting the GNU system
> onto the Win32 subsystem.
> 
> Well, you might be able to do that.  And if you deleted all the
> Windows DLLs and graphical applications, you might end up with
> something which is the GNU system plus the kernel of Windows.
> 
> That would justify the name GNU/.  (I don't know
> the name of the kernel of Windows; I have never been a Windows user.)
> 
> I would rather use GNU/Linux, since Linux is free software.

Sure. I would too - in fact right now none of my machines boot windows
(although I am typing this on my Solaris box, and it is running on my
Linux box). But what we'd rather run isn't the point we're debating -
the point is what we call what we'd rather run.

You agree that if you threw out most of windows you could call it
GNU/. Although it is inaccurate, since win32 isn't
the kernel but only its API, this sounds a lot like GNU/win32. But it's
called Cygwin32, and it seems like Cyg has supplanted GNU. Perhaps Cyg
came from the acronym Cyg's Your GNU? Although it's cute, I'm sure Cyg
came from the fact that Cygnuswin32 sounded silly, but Cygwin32 has a
ring to it...let's call it that.

> > I will ask someone to tell me what CodeFusion is.  I have heard a few
> > people mention it recently, but no one has described it to me.
> 
> As I understand it, CodeFusion is a GUI that wrappers the GNUPro tool
> suite (gcc, gdb, etc).
> 
> Those programs, the compilation tools, are just a part of the GNU
> operating system.  So this is quite different from the situation
> with GNU/Linux.
> 
> As for whether they are treating us properly, giving credit properly,
> that depends on the details of what they say.  I haven't seen it, so I
> can't judge.  (It is a tangent which I think we need not go down.)

Well, I guess we must agree to disagree on this point. Even the code
fusion case seems similar to me - lack of credit for a portion of the
GNU system used - and it isn't tangential since my whole point is that
there's no effort to equitably persecute everyone who doesn't give
credit to the GNU system in the product name. The effort is all directed
at the single most popular packaging of open source software since its
inception. The fact that the criticism is biased in this way is exactly
the point I'm trying to make, by citing other examples that have
received no similar criticism.

> I guess the root of my confusion is that I just don't know how much
> credi

Re: Accusations, accusations, always accusations

[John Cowan]

Richard Stallman scripsit:

> Judging from your description, adding Cygwin32 to Windows makes is a
> system that looks somewhat like GNU/Linux (or equally, somewhat like
> Unix).  But it still has all of Windows in it.

A little more than "looks somewhat like": the actual GNU programs are
being executed there, with a translation layer (Cygwin proper) that
simulates a GNU kernel (not the Hurd, more like Linux).

> Well, you might be able to do that.  And if you deleted all the
> Windows DLLs and graphical applications, you might end up with
> something which is the GNU system plus the kernel of Windows.
> 
> That would justify the name GNU/.  (I don't know
> the name of the kernel of Windows; I have never been a Windows user.)

Windows comes in several flavors which do not share a common kernel.
In addition, NT uses the term "kernel" in the sense of "microkernel";
the analog to the Unix kernel is known as the "Windows NT executive".

> Those programs, the compilation tools, are just a part of the GNU
> operating system.

Is what is "part of GNU" and what is simply "GNU-compatible" defined
explicitly somewhere?
http://www.gnu.org/software/software.html disclaims completeness.

-- 
John Cowan   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   I am a member of a civilization. --David Brin

Re: Accusations, accusations, always accusations

[Richard Stallman]

I find the two quite similar actually. Cygwin32 is gcc & company, bash,
and a standard set of file utilities (ls, tar, ...). From the user's
perspective, it transforms their NT system into a system where the
shells look and act just like UNIX shells.

You're talking about "the user's perspective", what the system
looks like.  I'm talking about what it is made of.

Judging from your description, adding Cygwin32 to Windows makes is a
system that looks somewhat like GNU/Linux (or equally, somewhat like
Unix).  But it still has all of Windows in it.

 While doing this work, one can't help but
notice that Cygwin32 is effectively a method for porting the GNU system
onto the Win32 subsystem.

Well, you might be able to do that.  And if you deleted all the
Windows DLLs and graphical applications, you might end up with
something which is the GNU system plus the kernel of Windows.

That would justify the name GNU/.  (I don't know
the name of the kernel of Windows; I have never been a Windows user.)

I would rather use GNU/Linux, since Linux is free software.

> I will ask someone to tell me what CodeFusion is.  I have heard a few
> people mention it recently, but no one has described it to me.

As I understand it, CodeFusion is a GUI that wrappers the GNUPro tool
suite (gcc, gdb, etc).

Those programs, the compilation tools, are just a part of the GNU
operating system.  So this is quite different from the situation
with GNU/Linux.

As for whether they are treating us properly, giving credit properly,
that depends on the details of what they say.  I haven't seen it, so I
can't judge.  (It is a tangent which I think we need not go down.)

 The "you" in this sentence is not RMS or a plural you referring
to developers of the GNU system; it is specifically the person I was
responding to (John Cowan) 

Indeed, I misunderstood that part.  I apologize for my confusion.

I guess the root of my confusion is that I just don't know how much
credit is enough.

How about giving the GNU Project equal billing with Linus?
Since we did much more of the work, and had the overall vision
too, surely it is not unreasonable to ask for that much.

Re: Accusations, accusations, always accusations

[Richard Stallman]

   3. The end-user documentation included with the redistribution,
  if any, must include the following acknowledgment:  
 "This product includes software developed by the
  Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/)."
  Alternately, this acknowledgment may appear in the software itself,
  if and wherever such third-party acknowledgments normally appear.

I see nothing moral objectionable in this clause.  I have no moral
objection to the BSD advertising clause either; its problems are
practical only.  But I don't think this clause causes the same
practical problems, since it does not apply to advertising.

Could you send me the entire new version of the license?

Re: Accusations, accusations, always accusations

[Richard Stallman]

Now that we're having this argument I'm starting to
feel motivated to try FreeBSD (since I don't have any philosophical
issues with the BSD license).

I think it is unfortunate that you feel this way, but I am not going
to be silent just because some people object to what I say.  Speaking
in terms of principle, you have a right to disagree with me, but that
should not stop me from saying what I think.

Pragmatically speaking, while some people turn against us for asking
people to call the system GNU/Linux, at the same time other "Linux
users" become much more interested in the GNU Project when they know
what we did.  On the balance, it seems to be a good policy, especially
nowadays since I've learned which ways work better.

Re: Accusations, accusations, always accusations

[Alex Nicolaou]

John Cowan wrote:
> Alex Nicolaou scripsit:
> > John's implication is that the Linux kernel development
> > community is morally worthless for failing to name it GNU/Linux and I
> > think that this is quite out of line.
> 
> It would be, if I had either said or implied that.  I didn't.
> I have no opinion on the Linux vs. GNU/Linux dispute.  I do have
> an opinion, which I was defending, on whether the GNU GPL should
> demand credit as a condition of creating derived works: namely,
> it is neither practically advisable nor morally justifiable.

I'm sorry to have misinterpreted you. Now we can simply agree that
credit is given by convention and moral obligation.

Whether we agree that demanding renaming of software in order to
emphasize credit is justified is unclear to me. I believe that it is not
justified, and if it is desired requiring it as part of the license
agreement is the only way to get it to happen.

alex

Re: Accusations, accusations, always accusations

[Brian Behlendorf]

On Mon, 18 Oct 1999, Richard Stallman wrote:
> Since this concept of getting "credit" for software seems to be so
> important, it probably should be embodied in the license. 
> 
> I disagree on principle; however, even if I agreed, I see no way that
> a license could be written to address the issue.

Yay, a discussion about licenses on license-discuss.  In the new Apache
license (which has not yet been applied to the HTTP project, but is being
used on Jakarta), we have changed the much-maligned "advertising clause" 
to read:

   3. The end-user documentation included with the redistribution,
  if any, must include the following acknowledgment:  
 "This product includes software developed by the
  Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/)."
  Alternately, this acknowledgment may appear in the software itself,
  if and wherever such third-party acknowledgments normally appear.

It may not be satisfactory to Richard, but it does address the issue, and
is much more liberal (by being more specific) than the older one.

Brian

Re: Accusations, accusations, always accusations

[John Cowan]

Alex Nicolaou scripsit:

> I think you accidentally edited out the context that makes this more
> clear. The "you" in this sentence is not RMS or a plural you referring
> to developers of the GNU system; it is specifically the person I was
> responding to (John Cowan) who wrote "failing to give credit to prior
> researchers is the act of a morally  worthless person".

I was talking about scientific research, not programming.
Furthermore, I was talking about whether the GNU GPL should
*demand* credit.  There is no *law* that makes giving credit to one's
predecessors a requirement, but justice is not the only virtue.

> John's implication is that the Linux kernel development
> community is morally worthless for failing to name it GNU/Linux and I
> think that this is quite out of line.

It would be, if I had either said or implied that.  I didn't.
I have no opinion on the Linux vs. GNU/Linux dispute.  I do have
an opinion, which I was defending, on whether the GNU GPL should
demand credit as a condition of creating derived works: namely,
it is neither practically advisable nor morally justifiable.


-- 
John Cowan   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   I am a member of a civilization. --David Brin

Re: Accusations, accusations, always accusations

[Alex Nicolaou]

Richard Stallman wrote:
> 
> I do think that the authors of the GNU programs deserve credit for what
> they've done, and that also translates into credit for the whole "GNU
> System". However, it's puzzling to me why nobody's busy arguing that it
> should be called GNU/Cygwin32 ...
> 
> As far as I understand it, this is not a similar situation.  Cygwin32
> uses just a part of the GNU system, the compilation tools.  And it
> is just an add-on for another large system, not a whole system.

I find the two quite similar actually. Cygwin32 is gcc & company, bash,
and a standard set of file utilities (ls, tar, ...). From the user's
perspective, it transforms their NT system into a system where the
shells look and act just like UNIX shells. It does this by providing a
porting layer that makes it easy to take more GNU tools and run
./configure && make && make install and get the right result. 

It isn't quite comparable to Linux since it isn't packaged as well, and
so there's a lot of work for the end user who actually wishes the GNU
system's feel inside NT. While doing this work, one can't help but
notice that Cygwin32 is effectively a method for porting the GNU system
onto the Win32 subsystem. However, work will not be required - you'll be
able to run the install and with virtually no effort will have the GNU
system on NT without the current configuration issues. At that point it
will be exactly parallel - and will it have the wrong name? 

> Also, I would expect that what Cygwin32 owes to GNU software is
> pretty clear to its users (which is not the case for most users
> of GNU/Linux).

I have to agree here.

> But perhaps they ought to give more credit to GNU.

I guess the root of my confusion is that I just don't know how much
credit is enough. When I was using Linux 0.99 I gave a lot of credit to
the GNU project. Now that we're having this argument I'm starting to
feel motivated to try FreeBSD (since I don't have any philosophical
issues with the BSD license). I'm sure this isn't the effect that you're
trying to produce!

>   For that matter, why
> isn't it GNU/CodeFusion? I guess you feel that the people at Cygnus are
> morally worthless.
> 
> You must have a strong wish to criticize the GNU Project if you will
> criticize us for things you only imagine we do.  You ought to verify
> things before you use them as the basis for accusations.

I think you accidentally edited out the context that makes this more
clear. The "you" in this sentence is not RMS or a plural you referring
to developers of the GNU system; it is specifically the person I was
responding to (John Cowan) who wrote "failing to give credit to prior
researchers is the act of a morally  worthless person". I was attempting
(obviously unsuccessfully) to show that the words were too strong by
mirroring them back at him in a context where credit for the GNU project
is due (and given at the same level as in Linux in my opinion) and yet
is not contested the way it is with Linux. I think that to label anybody
morally worthless as the result of any single action is quite
questionable; John's implication is that the Linux kernel development
community is morally worthless for failing to name it GNU/Linux and I
think that this is quite out of line.

> I will ask someone to tell me what CodeFusion is.  I have heard a few
> people mention it recently, but no one has described it to me.

As I understand it, CodeFusion is a GUI that wrappers the GNUPro tool
suite (gcc, gdb, etc).

> It is
> disturbing that the inequity has only been widely discussed since Linux
> became very popular,
> 
> I have been trying to spread the word for many years;
> it is not my fault if you did not notice.

I'm sorry I didn't notice too. However, for a long time I've been happy
just to get GNU software via ftp and haven't followed the newsgroups or
mailing lists about GNU in particular. The first reference I can find to
this on the Linux kernel mailing list is March, 1999. 

What's the URL for the original message on the topic?

alex

Re: Accusations, accusations, always accusations

[Richard Stallman]

I do think that the authors of the GNU programs deserve credit for what
they've done, and that also translates into credit for the whole "GNU
System". However, it's puzzling to me why nobody's busy arguing that it
should be called GNU/Cygwin32 ...

As far as I understand it, this is not a similar situation.  Cygwin32
uses just a part of the GNU system, the compilation tools.  And it
is just an add-on for another large system, not a whole system.

Also, I would expect that what Cygwin32 owes to GNU software is
pretty clear to its users (which is not the case for most users
of GNU/Linux).

But perhaps they ought to give more credit to GNU.

  For that matter, why
isn't it GNU/CodeFusion? I guess you feel that the people at Cygnus are
morally worthless.

You must have a strong wish to criticize the GNU Project if you will
criticize us for things you only imagine we do.  You ought to verify
things before you use them as the basis for accusations.

I will ask someone to tell me what CodeFusion is.  I have heard a few
people mention it recently, but no one has described it to me.

It is
disturbing that the inequity has only been widely discussed since Linux
became very popular,

I have been trying to spread the word for many years;
it is not my fault if you did not notice.

it smacks of opportunism.

If you like someone, you call him a "pragmatist".
If you hate him, you call him an "opportunist".

Re: Accusations, accusations, always accusations

[Richard Stallman]

Since this concept of getting "credit" for software seems to be so
important, it probably should be embodied in the license. 

I disagree on principle; however, even if I agreed, I see no way that
a license could be written to address the issue.

could require that collections of software licensed under GPL be clearly
labelled with a tag saying that "This CD contains # software packages
from the GNU project".

You're talking about the use of individual GNU software packages.  But
the individual packages we developed are just parts of what the GNU
Project did.  We developed them in order to accomplish our real goal,
which was to make a whole system.

Giving us credit only for the specific GNU packages included in a
version of the GNU system would be missing the forest for the trees.
I ask people to use the term "GNU/Linux" because that is a way to say
that the system as a whole is based on the GNU system as a whole.

So thanks for the suggestion, but you see it simply doesn't do the job
I am trying to do.  (I also don't think licenses should make
requirements about this, and people were right to point out that
not every GPL-covered program is a GNU program.)

Re: Accusations, accusations, always accusations

[Alex Nicolaou]

John Cowan wrote:
> 
> Alex Nicolaou scripsit:
> 
> > Since this concept of getting "credit" for software seems to be so
> > important, it probably should be embodied in the license.
> 
> Scientific research doesn't come with such strings attached, but
> failing to give credit to prior researchers is the act of a morally
> worthless person.

Scientific credit is not usually awknowledged in the title of the paper.
A section for awknowledgements and previous work is usually included
which has the dual goal of giving credit and establishing the author's
own legitimate contribution in the grand scheme of things.

I do think that the authors of the GNU programs deserve credit for what
they've done, and that also translates into credit for the whole "GNU
System". However, it's puzzling to me why nobody's busy arguing that it
should be called GNU/Cygwin32 ... I guess Cygwin just isn't popular
enoguh yet to require the GNU name tagged onto it.  For that matter, why
isn't it GNU/CodeFusion? I guess you feel that the people at Cygnus are
morally worthless.

I do not, however. Evidence of their awknowledgement of GNU software's
role in their products is strongly present all over their WWW site.
Similarly for Linux distributors. The following link is directly
accessible from the home page of redhat:

http://www.redhat.com/knowledgebase/linux_intro.html

So, when is enough credit enough? Credit is due, and it is given.

> > However, since credit is important to you, it is worth releasing a new
> > version of the GPL which includes a statement of the terms that require
> > distributors of GNU software to awknowledge that their distribution
> > contains GNU software.
> 
> Practical considerations militate against this.

Why isn't this practical? I don't understand how the desired arrangement
can be required of people and yet it is impractical to write it down.

The fact is a higher level of credit is desired than is being given.
This inequity can only be rectified by modifying the license. It is
disturbing that the inequity has only been widely discussed since Linux
became very popular, and is not discussed at all in other parallel
products: it smacks of opportunism.

alex

Re: Accusations, accusations, always accusations

[John Cowan]

Alex Nicolaou scripsit:

> Since this concept of getting "credit" for software seems to be so
> important, it probably should be embodied in the license.

Scientific research doesn't come with such strings attached, but
failing to give credit to prior researchers is the act of a morally
worthless person.

> However, since credit is important to you, it is worth releasing a new
> version of the GPL which includes a statement of the terms that require
> distributors of GNU software to awknowledge that their distribution
> contains GNU software.

Practical considerations militate against this.

-- 
John Cowan   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   I am a member of a civilization. --David Brin

Re: Accusations, accusations, always accusations

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Rodent of Unusual Size ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):

> I believe you misunderstand me.  I was in no way claiming
> anything about the GPL or Richard; I was pointing out what
> seems (to me) to be a flaw in a proposed alteration to the
> GPL.  GPL != GNU, but Alex's suggested change seemed (again,
> to me) to be treating it as GPL == GNU.  I was merely pointing
> this out.

My apologies.  That would indeed be a problem, if so.

-- 
Cheers, "Heedless of grammar, they all cried 'It's him!'"
Rick Moen   -- R.H. Barham, _Misadventure at Margate_
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Accusations, accusations, always accusations

[Rodent of Unusual Size]

Rick Moen wrote:
> 
> Quoting Rodent of Unusual Size ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> 
> > I think the problem with this approach is that it appears
> > to assume that anything that is released under the GPL is
> > part of the GNU project.
> 
> This is a factual error, and functions here as a straw-man argument:
> I have never known Stallman to be less than very clear on the
> distinction between GPLed software and GNU software.

I believe you misunderstand me.  I was in no way claiming
anything about the GPL or Richard; I was pointing out what
seems (to me) to be a flaw in a proposed alteration to the
GPL.  GPL != GNU, but Alex's suggested change seemed (again,
to me) to be treating it as GPL == GNU.  I was merely pointing
this out.
-- 
#kenP-)}

Ken Coar
Apache Software Foundation  
"Apache Server for Dummies" 

Re: Accusations, accusations, always accusations

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Rodent of Unusual Size ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):

> I think the problem with this approach is that it appears
> to assume that anything that is released under the GPL is
> part of the GNU project.

This is a factual error, and functions here as a straw-man argument:
I have never known Stallman to be less than very clear on the distinction 
between GPLed software and GNU software.  The GNU packages are listed at 
http://www.fsf.org/software/software.html

-- 
Cheers, "Heedless of grammar, they all cried 'It's him!'"
Rick Moen   -- R.H. Barham, _Misadventure at Margate_
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Accusations, accusations, always accusations

[Derek Balling]

At 09:53 AM 10/17/99 -0400, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> > However, since credit is important to you, it is worth
> > releasing a new version of the GPL which includes a statement
> > of the terms that require distributors of GNU software to
> > awknowledge that their distribution contains GNU software.
>
>I think the problem with this approach is that it appears
>to assume that anything that is released under the GPL is
>part of the GNU project.  I don't believe that's the
>case.

Correct. Just as Linux is released under the GPL and is not part of the GNU 
project.

>FWIW, I don't like the GPL and don't plan to ever release
>anything under it.  But I'm trying to be objective. :-)

I've got one piece of software under it, but I'm planning on switching in 
the next release.

Re: Accusations, accusations, always accusations

[Rodent of Unusual Size]

Alex Nicolaou wrote:
> 
> However, since credit is important to you, it is worth
> releasing a new version of the GPL which includes a statement
> of the terms that require distributors of GNU software to
> awknowledge that their distribution contains GNU software.

I think the problem with this approach is that it appears
to assume that anything that is released under the GPL is
part of the GNU project.  I don't believe that's the
case.

FWIW, I don't like the GPL and don't plan to ever release
anything under it.  But I'm trying to be objective. :-)
-- 
#kenP-)}

Ken Coar
Apache Software Foundation  
"Apache Server for Dummies" 

Re: Accusations, accusations, always accusations

[Alex Nicolaou]

(This is an honest attempt to redirect this thread back to licensing
issues.)

Richard Stallman wrote:

> Meanwhile, I will respond, not in kind, but by calmly continuing to
> inform people that the system often called "Linux" is a derivative of
> the GNU system, and asking them to give the GNU Project credit for
> being its principal (though not its only) developer.

Since this concept of getting "credit" for software seems to be so
important, it probably should be embodied in the license. The GPL
doesn't indicate any conditions regarding credit or lack thereof, but it
could require that collections of software licensed under GPL be clearly
labelled with a tag saying that "This CD contains # software packages
from the GNU project".

In the meantime, your expression of this opinion appears to amount to
"give the GNU project credit instead of money". However, the GNU project
is frequently credited when Linux is discussed, even in relatively
content-free forums such as the mass media. Because of this, your desire
for credit is frequently misconstrued.

I think the fact of the matter is that more people are attracted to free
software because it is free in the dollars and cents sense than because
it is free in the freedom sense. Agreement with the philosophy comes
later (if at all). Because of this, I think it matters not at all
whether the new user of Linux understands that Linux includes a lot of
GNU software or not: that understanding, like so many things about
Linux, can come later (if at all).

However, since credit is important to you, it is worth releasing a new
version of the GPL which includes a statement of the terms that require
distributors of GNU software to awknowledge that their distribution
contains GNU software.

alex