On Tuesday 10 October 2006 21:02, Nagarjuna G. wrote:
2006/10/10, Mrugesh Karnik mrugeshkarnik@gmail.com:
On Tuesday 10 October 2006 16:19, Nagarjuna G. wrote:
GNU community did untiringly requested all other licenses to make them compatible with GPL, or dual license them, in the interest of user's freedom. Lot of projects do this, e.g. openoffice.org, Perl. Several projects' licenses have been modified, and became compatible with GPL, eg. ZPL, PPL, APL. But, it is unfortunate that people read this interest as FSF's interest, as if FSF's interest is not in their interest.
Tell me something. Some people who are 'fans' of GNU, go to such lengths as to call all the software that's been licensed under the GPL, GNU software. Now if I write some software and use GPL for it, I'd most certainly not be willing to accredit it to GNU. Why should I?
This is just your assumption, who is asking any one to credit GNU for a non GNU project? The system is indeed GNU system with Linux as a kernel. When the kernel was completed, the only thing you need is to add is the GNU system to make it an OS. And the kernel was also completed using GNU tools. Under such a situation, why do you think we are asking for a thing that we didn't deserve?
Hehehe. Thank you. Exactly what I needed to hear from an FSF representative. Now would you be so kind as to make sure everyone who tries to spread GNU philosophy is clear upon this point? I've had arguments with people about this, even during the RMS lecture. Pity, for the lack of time on RMS' part meant that I couldn't bring up this issue right there.
Like Linux said, "Authors matter." By using the term GNU/Linux, it seems as though Linux is just a part of the GNU project. It is not. Just because someone uses your tools to build their own software does not mean that you own that software. If you have such issues, don't let people use the tools. But again, that goes against freedom, doesn't it?
GNU doesn't own any software, GNU is software. GNU is not a person, not a company, so the ownership issue doesn't arise.
There goes Vihan's argument from the Andheri BoF. Granted that he did not mean that GNU owned the kernel, but I suppose he has no right to say this:
"But Linus himself uses GCC to build the kernel.."
What I hate about you FSF people is that you try and steal credit. You just said the same thing again... Use GNU in the name? WHY? Make up a name that highlights freedom, _very very clearly_.
GNU is a name that highlights software freedom. It is historically embedded in the semantics of the term, and is a symbol of software freedom.
Yes, well the point is, to a layman, who is completely new to this world, the word GNU doesn't make any sense.
You are using very harsh terms, 'hate', 'steal'. We embraced linux, we didn't hate. We are not trying to steal credit, we are asking for what we deserve.
My sincerest apologies for the harsh language. *bow*
Now what I mean by 'stealing credit' has been explained much better by KG in his response to your previous email.
I think that's fair. Clearly states that Linux is a separate project. GNU/Linux does not do that.
GNU and Linux are separate projects. If you say, + says that better than /, please do so. We are only saying please don't omit GNU.
Sure, but what about the other projects?
Now, let me clarify something. You might feel that I am against GNU or something. That is not the case. Whenever I introduce someone to Linux, I tell him about Linux being a kernel and not the entire OS. I explain the term Free Software and I state the importance of Freedom. I am not on anybody's side. I just agree with what _I_ think is correct, may it come from anybody.
But, why not work in favor of FSF's interest, if FSF's agenda is to protect your and my freedom. When we are requesting people to adopt GPLv3, it is not to snatch anything from from you, but to prevent it from getting snatched.
Highlight "request". I agree with Linus. If the kernel developers think that GPL 3 is no good for the kernel, so be it. Let it be under GPL 2. Why create an issue? Highlight "request".
Never did FSF force. But, we have a right to request again, and may be again. We want to inform about the danger of loosing software freedom, that is our project, we will do it relentlessly. But will never force, and we never did. Isn't it fair enough.
On the one hand there are requesting people, on the other hand there are those who say, go and make your own kernel. We never even said once, go and make your own compiler and tools. Please dont do that, it is not necessary. It will be stupid to do that. And GNU will not make another monolithic kernel, if it will make a kernel, it will be HURD.
Good luck. And that's no sarcasm. I think it'll do this world good if there was another kernel that could compete with Linux. Monopoly, anywhere, is bad. The ego of being able to say "Go write your own kernel" shouldn't be allowed to happen.
If you dont want to call the system GNU + Linux, that is your choice, but next time I find you saying only Linux when you meant not merely the kernel, we will relentlessly request.
Hehehe, I wouldn't use GNU+Linux either. I have yet to decide upon what name depicts the freedom part clearly.. FOSS+Linux maybe? I am open to suggestions.
Nagarjuna