On 10/10/06 16:19 +0530, Nagarjuna G. wrote:
2006/10/10, Devdas Bhagat devdas@dvb.homelinux.org:
On 10/10/06 15:20 +0530, Nagarjuna G. wrote:
<snip> > it everywhere. So, the GNU community feels betrayed when the > community at large speaks excluding the name as well as their > ideology. > So I say Linux and put code out under the terms of the GPL v2.
We wish this symbiosis is sustained as well as acknowledged. How else to do that than GNU+Linux?
See above. The problem with GNU/Linux is that it excludes everyone else. There has been an immense contribution from BSD, MPL, Apache, Artistic and other licenses in the code which makes Linux useful. So we either acknowledge them all, or none of them.
why not, we do have GNU/NetBSD, GNU/KfreeBSD. Mozilla, and Apache are application projects therefore donot fit to be called operating
GNU at the moment _is_ userland. GNU/BSD is applicable because it replaces significant parts of the default BSD userland with GNU tools, and the GNU/ is a warning to users that the userland has changed. You might also note the existence of freebsd-* and netbsd-* packages in the Gentoo portage tree. Those are for Gentoo/BSD.
This is not the case with Linux. GNU tools sit at the same status as other applications. For most people, the GNU tools don't even matter, they run other applications. Most of the userland tools can be replaced with busybox too.
systems. We dont give all the application names in the operating system. They are very useful parts of the full system, just as bash, emacs, GNOME, KDE, OpenOffice.org etc. are. You are trying to read it as a licensing issue, it is not.
I am not. I am reading it specifically as a branding issue, where the FSF is actually losing ground by insisting on the term GNU/Linux. No one part of the userland should claim dominance over the whole.
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. 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.
And I am not doing anything to oppose the adoption of GPLv3. I may even release code under the GPLv3.
Devdas Bhagat