On 08/10/06 09:19 +0000, Dinesh Shah wrote:

On 10/7/06, Philip Tellis philip.tellis@gmx.net wrote:

...

http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/9/25/161

Interesting insights about licencing of the kernel.

Indeed... The question is can software be used for activism? and even bigger question is should it be used for activism?

It's called the Free Software Foundation.

Devdas Bhagat

2006/10/8, Dinesh Shah dineshah@gmail.com:

Hi!

On 10/8/06, Devdas Bhagat devdas@dvb.homelinux.org wrote:

...

...

Indeed... The question is can software be used for activism? and even bigger question is should it be used for activism?

It's called the Free Software Foundation.

I know. I had posed those couple of questions and seeking the opinions of LUGers (GLUGers?). :-)

Getting those opinions are quite important and should lead to healthy discussion.

Good UI or technology is not really scarse. What is scarse is awareness that freedom of the users is important. Several of you are spreading the use of Linux[sic] among your friends, families. That is really good work. But when you did that you are spreading it as technology, saying we can do this, as well as this, and without viruses etc etc. This does work in a pragmatic society. Seeing this strategy working we feel this is sufficient, but no. It is not difficult for a proprietary vendor to adapt the power of a free operating system and wrap it up with applications and devices embedded with DRM (digital 'restrictions' management). E.g. Apple. What will be your argument in support of Linux[sic] as against Apple? When govt offices, schools and colleges all over the country are given free copies of M$, what will be your argument in favour of Linux[sic]?

Technical problems can be solved not only by us, by them as well, it is not difficult for M$ to fix virus problem if they want to. What they have no interest in fixing is the user's freedom, for it effects the degree of profits they can earn. As long as user's are not aware of this they will continue to exploit user's ignorance and rule the world.

The alternative is, along with the best technology, which we have, Linux, Mozilla, Apache, Xorg, ... and last but not least GNU. The last one is not just a technology, but a way of life. As long as you dont add this technology embedded with activism, you will not have any argument against the two possibilities I raised above. That is why if we promote GNU we will have won our freedom. The name matters, because of the philosophy associated with it. GNU is not just a idealogy, it is indeed very practical, it is the indispensable bedrock of the systems that we are using.

We have to make best technology that is free of proprietary encodings and DRM embedded devices. Our systems will invite parasites if we dont protect our software with GPLv3. It is a minor fix to take care of the current vicious environment. I am sure we may need future revisions to take care of the continuing struggle for software freedom.

Nagarjuna

On 10/8/06, Philip Tellis philip.tellis@gmx.net wrote:

Different people need convincing in different ways, and in order to guarantee convincing, it is important that your first encounter not be your last. Some people will understand immediately the importance of freedom when explained properly, and will embrace it. Others will need time to first let the new jargon settle in, and then think about other aspects.

The set of people falling in second category is far larger then the 1st.

For this second group of people, it is important to have quick to remember terms that can be memorised without effort. Once the terms are no longer alien to them, additional qualities can be touched upon.

True, these are those people who wants "their work done".

There are large number of businesses / developers / students who do have this question - "If I give away my source code, how will I make money".

Everyone needs their own reasons to move to FOSS. We have to just present them with multiple advantages of FOSS - one of them and most important is freedom - and let them make their own choices.

IMHO It will be fruitless and counter productive to force everyone to choose ONLY freedom as an advantage.

With regards,

On 10/8/06, Rony wrote:

If I own a software company, how do I make money if my software is OSS and anyone can compile the code and sell copies of the same without I getting any share of it? Is too much freedom dangerous?

IMO, quality is your USP in this case, if you can provide quality people will be ready to pay it's price. Well those who want the software free of cost will get it by hook or crook (read piracy). These people are out of consideration. So, it won't matter if your software is Open Source or proprietory when it comes to quality people will be ready to buy it. So, Open Source should rather help as the code is open and can be trusted by the customers.

On 10/9/06, Rony ronbillypop@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

In GPL, anyone is free to use / distribute / resell / modify -> redistribute the modified code or give everything away for free. Before I explain my point, I want to distinguish between customized softwares made for individual clients and general purpose softwares for everyone, those that can be simply downloaded and used by anyone concerned.

In case of the former, one can charge any X amount from the client for making a customized package.

I think this market is as big, if not bigger, as the general purpose one. Indian IT companies for example have very less presence in the later one. Feel free to correct me if you think otherwise.

But in the latter, suppose I make a CAD software thats very good and

works just like the popular closed CAD software. I post it on the net under GPL and keep a price of some 100s of dollars. Now some smart alec who is out to ruin my business compiles my code and even acknowledges my good work and puts the package on the net for a free download. He is doing a perfectly legal thing as the GPL allows this. So how do I run my company when my work is available to others for free as in beer.

You can always charge for supporting your software. I am sure you knew that :p Customize it on demand. You can opt for dual licensing if that suits your business. And you have advantages of bazar style of coding over the closed source software.

And already some companies are doing that. Successfully till now.

Regards Aseem

On 09/10/06 21:20 +0530, Rony wrote: <snip>

So the bottom line is that FOSS cannot make money on sales. They can only make money through service and customization. This happens only for big customers. Thats why the home or small office customers remain untouched by FOSS companies. Thats where commercial closed software

*Sigh*. The home user will *NOT* pay money for software, unless forced to. I don't know of too many small business owners who want to pay for software either, unless it directly affects their revenue/profit generation. So Tally will be bought, Office and Windows will be copied.

fills the gap. If FOSS versions are available for doing the same tasks, the customer will simply download that software and use it for free. He still doesn't generate revenue for the FOSS maker.

Pssst, Redhat became profitable after dropping their support for small customers. How much revenue do you think Microsoft actually gets from home users (or small businesses)? And you do know that OEM versions of Windows come with no support whatsoever? Notice that Microsoft fixes DRM flaws in three days, but regular users have to wait for a few weeks (to months) to get patches for exploitable bugs. Who do you think their real customers are?

The 90/10 rule applies for profitable customers (90% of your customer base will not give you a profit, 10% will).

Also, if you notice, service is a far more profitable market than pure sales (MSFT is desperate to break into the service market, IBM generates very large profits from service. IBM even sold the PC division because it wasn't generating enough profits.).

Devdas Bhagat

On Monday 09 October 2006 21:20, Rony wrote:

...

And already some companies are doing that. Successfully till now.

So the bottom line is that FOSS cannot make money on sales.

Wrong. U can sell and make near 100% profit. U dont have to pay an overseer.

They can only make money through service and customization. This happens only for big customers. Thats why the home or small office customers remain untouched by FOSS companies. Thats where commercial closed software fills the gap.

You couldn't be more off the mark.

If FOSS versions are available for doing the same tasks, the customer will simply download that software and use it for free. He still doesn't generate revenue for the FOSS maker.

so your selling price would be limited to the customers download cost right?. What were u expecting gadzillion dollars?. But u could charge an hefty premium and get gadzillion dollars. How? Brand building. How would u postion your stuff, what market segment, what focus. Design an appropriate brand building strategy. Spend Rs. 1 billion and carpet bomb all print and electronic media. I bet Rs.500/- u will be lhe largest selling Linux distro in India. Will u make money selling to individuals? since it's your business u should know. If u dont know u should hire a management team to do the homework.

What u are trying to do in this thread is make a business plan with only one input - somebody else's distro. And then conclude without any logic that u cant make money because the next guy has the same input's as u. If u stand in the middle of the herd u are going to move at the same speed as the herd. If u jump out and run u may go far or get eaten by the lions. In either case it's not the fault of the grass, or the land or the herd. U should be smart enough to see the possibilities. As others have pointed out there are umpteen companies selling gpl software, services or both. They are far more profitably than M$ and many are valued several times higher than M$.

all of the above applies absolutely equally to closed and open software. Profitability and market share has got nothing to do with the licence. In my loong exposure in this industry most of the software companies were always closed software companies and most of them have gone under / merged / morphed into something else. Not just here but world over. U can see it happening just now to the big bully. I bet u another Rs.500/- that M$ will have changed substantially in the next 5 yrs.

On Tuesday 10 October 2006 20:58, Rony wrote:

jtd wrote:

...

What u are trying to do in this thread is make a business plan with only one input - somebody else's distro. And then conclude without any logic that u cant make money because the next guy has the same input's as u.

Not at all. The distro is made by me ( in the example I gave ) and I want to make money selling it, not allow someone *else* to ruin my fruits of labour by giving it away free while I wait for customers to turn up at my door. It should not turn into a "Come O bull, hit me" as I grant gpl permission to others to do it.

Aha. But u dont have to give it away free at all. U can most certainly sell it. What u cant do is prevent the downstream from selling it too - except for your trade marks and brand marks. So if u have the might to build a brand and distribute where is the problem? The downstream guy CANT copy your trademarks, brand marks, distinctive packaging, documentation. Think "Lux supreme" made in umpteen sweat shop like SSIs, Coughka Khola bottled by numerous bottlers, Lays potato chips, Pan Parag, VIP, Amul. U can roll these in your kitchen with better performance and lower costs. All the above products stand on brands and distribution networks, built at enormous costs over time, that act as entry barriers. So even superior products cannot easily enter the market. The big brands too follow arm twisting tactics, occasionally illegal (smashing up bottles, engineering labour unrest ) but mostly more brand building and distribution incentives. Infact the unorganised sector sells more of the above products than all the branded guys put together. Same story in the PC hardware market. As u can see the licence has got nothing to do with market acceptance on a commercial basis. In fact in this case the gpl is actually lowering the entry barrier - almost zero development costs for u and others too. It is leveraging the power of word of mouth publicity and new communication media. It's leveraging new distribution channels - internet. It's totally focussed on the customer - just send a mail about a bug to developer and see. The one thing it isnt focussed on is an individual business. If your goals deviate from those of the contibutors u can pay them to work towards your goals or do it your self (as in hire somebody). What u have is essentially a natural commodity abundantly and freely available (water, air). Wether u sell it plain, bottled, with nimbu, chai or pesticide is what u decide based on your resources.

Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:

On 10-Oct-06, at 8:58 PM, Rony wrote:

...

Not at all. The distro is made by me ( in the example I gave ) and I want to make money selling it, not allow someone *else* to ruin my fruits of labour by giving it away free while I wait for customers to turn up at my door. It should not turn into a "Come O bull, hit me" as I grant gpl permission to others to do it.

did you or did you not check out collabnet as I asked you to do? If you havent, please stop asking n00b questions.

The reply was in response to the op's mis-understanding of my earlier mail. There was no question in it.

Regards,

Rony.

Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

On 09-Oct-06, at 7:53 PM, Rony wrote:

But in the latter, suppose I make a CAD software thats very good and works just like the popular closed CAD software. I post it on the net under GPL and keep a price of some 100s of dollars. Now some smart alec who is out to ruin my business compiles my code and even acknowledges my good work and puts the package on the net for a free download. He is doing a perfectly legal thing as the GPL allows this. So how do I run my company when my work is available to others for free as in beer.

take a look at collabnet. They make obscene amounts of money marketing subversion. And they are the guys who have put up subversion for free download

Sometime on Oct 8, Rony assembled some asciibets to say:

If I own a software company, how do I make money if my software is OSS and anyone can compile the code and sell copies of the same without I getting any share of it? Is too much freedom dangerous?

Music labels ask the same question about their music being shared across the internet. Now, it comes as no surprise that the same people who fight for free software also fight for open distribution of online music. What's strange is that a large portion of people who fight for open distribution of online music would not give away their own software for free.

The fact is that with changing technology, business models need to adapt to stay in the game. Legislating that things stay the same because you wouldn't make money if they changed is counter productive to everyone, yourself included.

The first business to discover a sustainable business model based on the free share of online assets will likely remain a business leader for quite a while.

Many people will tell you that you make money by selling services rather than selling software. IMO, that's not really sustainable. As your client base increases, your need for more support personnel increases, and consequently your costs go up. Selling products and providing service for them will always get you more money than selling service only (which anyone can do).

Many companies are starting to identify new means of making money out of stuff they give away, but the killer business plan hasn't surfaced yet.

On Sunday 08 October 2006 23:26, Rony wrote:

Dinesh Shah wrote:

...

There are large number of businesses / developers / students who do have this question - "If I give away my source code, how will I make money".

If I own a software company, how do I make money if my software is OSS and anyone can compile the code and sell copies of the same without I getting any share of it? Is too much freedom dangerous?

Dont even think of a bussiness if your bussines is so trivial that somebody can copy your bussiness. Think of a shop with some goods. If some of the goods are stolen and sold your bussiness does not collapse. It will have a set back, which u mitigate by things like insurance. Now think of a shop with just one single diamond. Your risk is extremely high. Mitigating your business against collapse from robbery would be phenomenally high. And would keep climbing. The more successfull the business (based on single diamond metaphor) the more would be the attacks, risk and cost of doing business. It's only a matter of time before it collapses.

Otoh if u were doing business with libre software, the money that u would spend on buying bigger locks could be used for adding value to your customers ROI - which the big lock does not. The value add has to be given to the customer, not to your competitor. But wait. what if i gave it to the competitor and he uses it with his customer. I walk up to his customer and point out my copyright. A savvy customer would immediately understand your strength. The above is a very simplistic view. Writing new software is "trivial" making it work is devilishly complex and so expensive that even the worlds richest software company cant get it to work a full two years after the announced launch. So if u published your code the rest of the world does all the grunt work of testing, debugging and adding great features. Can u imagine the likes of Philip Tellis or Kenneth Laversen or Donald Becker or Damein Sandras on your "team"?. God u are miles ahead in the race with these guys on your side. This is what sells - not big lock on trivial software and brain dead bussiness model.

On 08-Oct-06, at 10:20 PM, Nagarjuna G. wrote:

Good UI or technology is not really scarse. What is scarse is awareness that freedom of the users is important. Several of you are spreading the use of Linux[sic] among your friends, families. That is really good work. But when you did that you are spreading it as technology, saying we can do this, as well as this, and without viruses etc etc. This does work in a pragmatic society. Seeing this strategy working we feel this is sufficient, but no.

we now have a third type of linux - 'linux[sic]' ;-). My philosophy is simple:

If they want free as in beer - tell them its free as in beer if they want cheap - tell them its cheap if they want stable - give them stable if they want no-virus - it is no-virus if they want user friendly - show them user friendly if they want maintainable - it is if they want adaptable - show them how to adapt if they want efficient - very efficient and, if they want freedom - give them that too.

So far, i have yet to meet anyone asking for freedom. And it is not something that can be taught. People go in for foss for any or all the reasons above, and slowly realise, to some degree or the other what freedom is, and the fact that they are free.

The biggest turn-off for people is the semi-religious approach to foss. I feel it is time the FSF started realising who its enemies are (they are not who they think they are). Frankly I feel the usage of the term 'linux[sic]' is sick.

Dear Depankar,

On 10/10/06, dipankar das paagol@gmail.com wrote:

The people that are writing 'linux[sic]' can put forward a reason. And you are just feeling? Why don't go to some 3-paise romance societies: they will appreciate a lot your idiotic talk-smart stance.

No personal attacks please. And please stay on the topic.

das

TIA for your understanding and not starting a flame war. :-) With regards,

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.

Devdas Bhagat

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? 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?

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_.

Oh and mind you, you say GNU/Linux not GNU & Linux. The only place where I've seen that second term used is on those stickers:

"GNU + Linux, the dynamic duo".

I think that's fair. Clearly states that Linux is a separate project. GNU/Linux does not do that.

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".

Nagarjuna

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

2006/10/10, Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.org:

be clear on one thing - GPL is not the only license around. FOSS licences range from pure BSD licences - which are the freest and least restrictive to the GPL, which is the most restrictive.

GPL is a copyleft license, it guarantees that all users will get the freedom. You can build a proprietory application using BSD licensed code. It is also Free Software but not copyleft. GPL has restrction so that all users will have freedom.

Apache

Software Foundation does not use the GPL - and you just have to look at their projects to see the huge contribution they have made to the foss world.

Clearly everyone accept that and recognises their work.

And zope/plone, postgresql, python, php ... the list is

endless. And also be clear that even assuming the operating system in what you call GNU/Linux is all GNU and GPL, a machine just running that operating system on that kernel is useless. It needs the applications to be useful. And a very large number of those applications are non-GNU and non-GPL. And they are free - and no one will be able to snatch away their freedom. So the assertion that the GPL is the sole guardian of freedom is false.

It is more than a license issue. GPL is there to guarantee all users will have freedom.

So i feel that you should stop trying to claim parentage of Linux -

linux neither wants or needs it. Far better you concentrate on your own baby - hurd.

GNU project started to develop a completely Free Operating system and since Linux filled the last piece to have a full OS the only motivation for hurd is technical, it tries to improve Unix design while Linux is trying to be like Unix.

Cheers Praveen

2006/10/10, Devdas Bhagat devdas@dvb.homelinux.org:

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.

Busybox doesn't give you a compiler, libraries. I dont agree that GNU sits with other applications. Other applications don't exist without GNU. *Can you explain how they can exist without GNU?* If this dependency is claimed falsely, I will correct myself. In fact most of the applications, including GNU exist without Linux, because they can depend on other kernels.

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.

Your perception that GNU is userland is dubious. In order to prove otherwise, you have to explain the above question.

Nagarjuna

On 11-Oct-06, at 4:26 PM, Devdas Bhagat wrote:

IBM/QT/Apache/Artistic/Mozilla/X/BSD/GNU/Linux

QAMBAXGI/Linux

or

QamBaxGiLinux - cool

2006/10/11, Devdas Bhagat devdas@dvb.homelinux.org:

BSD. They require gcc, but everything else is non GNU. As far as I am concerned, GNU is _one_ component of my system. A lot of other components use the GNU toolchain to exist, but practically, if those applications didn't exist, I might as well not use the computer.

that is the point. if those application dont exist without GNU, and there is nothing left useful for you on the computer without it, you have proved that GNU is indispensable. However, this is true only if you want to stick to free software. Otherwise GNU is dispensible anyway.

So me crediting just GNU would be wrong. IBM/QT/Apache/Artistic/Mozilla/X/BSD/GNU/Linux would be acceptable (off the top of my head, those are the licenses used by software on my system).

You are diverting the attention to licenses again. What about all those things that are listed above, do they not depend on gcc for their *free* existence? You may compile them with a non-free ANSI-C compiler, to demonstrate to me that GCC is dispensible. In order to show me your independence from GNU you became dependent on a proprietary thing. That is why I said, GNU is a core contribution for the existence of free software, whatever be the licenses they are all released. This dependency is also for the Linux kernel, and other free kernels. As most of you know C is the core of any Unix. They are born together.

This dependency is a factual relation, it is either true or not. Why hesitate to tell the truth? It is possible to write a program, release it under some other license, but you are still depending on GNU. Licenses dont tell you the dependencies. If the dependency is true, GNU is the core of the userland, not just one of them. If the dependency is true, why hesitate to credit the core contribution.

So, my thesis is, dispensing GNU will also take away your freedom.

Nagarjuna

On 10/11/06, jtd jtd@mtnl.net.in wrote:

IMO it was the fsf and it's core members who understood the dangers of sidelining the core political nessage and worked resolutely towards that goal. Inspite of naive arguments to the contrary by tech luminairs who while riding piggy back on the GNU system and enjoying the fresh air completely fail to see the whale they are riding on and the shark infested waters.

<snip>

It is these OTHER important things - not technical but political - for

which a GNU/Linux distro should be labeled as such. The technical semantics of chicken, egg, dna and other fanciful things can resolve themselves at everbody's leasure. The political battle cannot.

Hats off to jtd for his replies in this thread. Could not agree more with him on each point.

If the average end user is ignorant about the freedom, then we should spread the awareness before it is too late.

Linus was proved wrong in the Bitkeeper case. He *might* be wrong in not adopting GPLv3 as well.

Regards Aseem

On 10/11/06, Devdas Bhagat devdas@dvb.homelinux.org wrote:

To be very precise, there isn't a Free alternative to gcc yet. If the GNU folks will continue with the whole GNU/Linux thing, I might just get bugged enough to write a BSD licensed compiler.

Thats exactly the kind of aggressive response FSF has been getting from "Linux" fans. They simply say: "Go write your own kernel!!" We are not asking you to write your own compiler - you are free to do so if you want to. But if you are doing it on account of animosity toward GNU then it is only fair that you should NOT use any GNU tools to bootstrap your project. Best of luck!!! :-P

But my whole point is that GNU/Linux is pretty much useless to me. Regardless of how essential gcc is. If the GNU project gets credits, everyone else deserves the same amount of time.

Maybe it is useless to *YOU* ... that's your personal opinion and your free to have one. Is the "GNU/Linux" system useless or is the name "GNU/Linux" useless? IMO the name is not supposed to have any utility besides clear and unambiguous denotation. So Linux == kernel, GNU == indispensible(but kernel-less) project [excuse HURD] GNU/Linux == combination of the two where you may[/may not] install a multitude of useful but dispensible optional software packages (X/Apache/Mozilla/...)

Note that we are not yet claiming GNU/Linux to be a complete full-fledged usable system - but it is the foundation on which we build our grand edifice. So the biggest sinners and the cause of your confusion are the distros that fudge all components to give a "Linux distribution". What they are actually serving a combination of various FLosS components based on the GNU+Linux core ... as against a GNU+Hurd or GNU+BSD or Linux+BSD-userland core.

Theoretically each component is replacable ... but historically the GNU-component has contributed more(understatement) towards development of other parts than they have toward GNU simply because GNU was created as the enabler on which we can further free software development. So can we atleast agree that GNU is the first amongst equals and give it it's rightful place? That would be a good start.

Dispensing with the GPL? Definitely. Dispensing with the GNU project? Right now, other than the compiler, what else do you need to get a full BSD userland?

You are right there ... you need nothing else. So if you do actually use Linux kernel with the BSD userland on your computer you are free to call it Linux or whatever else you choose ... we have absolutely no objections. Infact we'll graciously allow you to use [only] our compiler and still continue to call in Linux :-)

. farazs

On 10/11/06, Devdas Bhagat devdas@dvb.homelinux.org wrote:

On 11/10/06 20:35 +0530, Faraz Shahbazker wrote:

<snip> > toward GNU then it is only fair that you should NOT use any GNU tools > to bootstrap your project. Best of luck!!! :-P > As RMS put it, it was necessary to use closed source tools to write emacs initially.

Touche :-)

A pure GNU/Linux system wouldn't be very useful, unless I was to write a lot of software myself.

By definition that is exactly what forms an "Operating System" . The rest are applications. Once again the boundaries may be blurred for YOU becoz the distro packages everything together.

eg. say I don't need X or apache / (never use KDE anyway) / and I am prepared to use w3(GNU) instead of Firefox. Now with a few small applications which may [not] not fall under any particular large project, I still have a usable system.

Try recreating the above scenario without glibc/binutils/coreutils (or any replacement thereof) and see what you get. Note that I've not even mentioned gcc since a user may not want to do any programming at all.

...

Linux == kernel, GNU == indispensible(but kernel-less) project [excuse HURD]

Pssst. gcc is about the only indispensible component. All the rest are dispensible.

You are wrongly equating "dispensible" with "replacable". We are not saying that you cannot replace GNU, but that without GNU or any equivalent replacement there would be no system to use inspite of all other large contributors. And now, since you are using GNU and not some equivalent replacement you should acknowledge as much.

And no one would deny them the credit for initiating the Free Software movement. But on my system, there is _no_ first among equals. There is root, and then there are the mortals. There is the kernel, and then there is the userland.

If by root you mean Operating System, then see the difference between a kernel and what constitutes an Operating System.

It would have been different if Linus had handed over copyright to the FSF, or if the involvement of the FSF had been more.

Once again, were not claiming kernel ownership, so we need not have been involved in kernel development. Moot point

. farazs

On 10/12/06, Devdas Bhagat devdas@dvb.homelinux.org wrote:

On 12/10/06 13:47 +0530, Faraz Shahbazker wrote:

...

Try recreating the above scenario without glibc/binutils/coreutils (or any replacement thereof) and see what you get. Note that I've not even

Uhm, BSD? <confused>

Uhm "any replacement thereof"? ... clearly there seems to be a language problem! Dunno where to go from here - so I guess I'll follow your advice and take up more fruitful pursuits.

Anyway thanks for a good joust :-)

.farazs

Sometime on Oct 11, FS cobbled together some glyphs to say:

"GNU/Linux" useless? IMO the name is not supposed to have any utility besides clear and unambiguous denotation. So

The name is an identifier. It must be chosen based on advertising and marketing needs. This is why most names are trademarked - to protect against others using the same name.

Attribution is not a property of the name.

It is not necessary that all persons/entities involved in producing the application be credited in its name. That's what the CREDITS/Acknowledgements/Licence files are for.

Many products have failed simply because they picked a name that didn't roll off of people's tongues. If word of mouth marketing isn't going to work, it will be very hard to sell your product.

While the FSF's message is important, it can only be used to sell the product to a subset of all potential clients. Different markets require different marketing strategies. Just like you wouldn't use the same strategy in India and Mexico, so also you cannot use the same marketing strategy to people who understand freedom and to those who don't care.

Sometime Today, KG cobbled together some glyphs to say:

yet to understand freedom'. Those who understand freedom and dont care should be quietly sent to the great /dev/null in the sky.

That would be an alternative way to serve total world domination?

2006/10/8, Philip Tellis philip.tellis@gmx.net:

I believe Linus' article was in response to someone's request for a poll about moving linux to the GPLv3

Hmm, I should have written "some days back" rather than "some time back" :-) It was surely not a response to this comment but I thought was interesting in this thread.