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
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
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, a
---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
stri
> 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 th
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 l
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, fr
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 Utiliti
---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 impos
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 compuls
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
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
> dilligen
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. Wha
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
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
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
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 a
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 install
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 rath
> 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 th
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 function
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, Alej
> 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
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,
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 chang
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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 shel
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 ex
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
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 acknow
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. Speak
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
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
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 cr
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 ...
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 i
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 softw
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
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
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,
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 argu
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
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
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 a
(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 Pr
Earlier on in the thread I wrote this:
If I was to replace all of Solaris's utilities with the GNU
equivalents, would anybody call it GNU/Solaris?
I for one would not call it that. Copying just the utilities from GNU
is not enough of a reason to say "the result is basi
51 matches
Mail list logo
