🚀 go-pugleaf

Christopher Browne <cbbrowne@acm.org> writes:

> The only system I recall installing where "almost everything" was
> covered by the GPL was an early install of GNU Hurd, before the Debian
> project for that started up.

That would be an early install of "GNU" which happened to use the Hurd
as its' kernel.

> And you're leaping straight into the fallacy that the license has
> anything to do with the "GNUness" of the software.  
> 
> The Linux kernel itself isn't GNU software, by virtue of its absence
> from <http://www.gnu.org/software/linux.html>.
> 
> GNU Software seems likely to be most properly defined as the software
> that has been approved as "GNU Software" by the Free Software
> Foundation.  The total list consists of 234 pieces of software.

A good point: GNU Software is just software that Free Software
Foundation has adopted or developed, and maintains.

> And it would miss the point.  The point is that there are strong
> arguments for the notion that there have been a wide variety of
> influences on the systems released as "Linux distributions."  The
> notion that there is inherently any FSF monopoly on "influence" is
> propaganda.

There is no FSF monopoly on "influence", nor is there claimed to be
(from what I've seen).

> When the FSF _demands_ this kind of "quasi-worship," it just gets
> peoples' backs up, and discourages them from expressing gratefulness
> where gratefulness is due.

This statement is false, I believe, and appears to be making the whole
thing more of a religious issue than a pragmatic one.  I don't believe
that the "GNU/Linux" moniker is at all about gratefulness: it appears
to be more about proper attribution, and has the benefit of promoting
understanding what the system is about (principally, the Freedom which
is a chief reason to use GNU as opposed to a BSD).

> It's much the same as when Americans head to Europe and expect people
> to virtually bow at their feet for having liberated them from Nazi
> Germany in World War II.  If they were to just _SHUT UP_, the locals
> would probably get around to it.

The request and the result are extremely unlikely to occur.  Of the
Americans that I met in Europe, none expected any recognition for
helping in WWII.  And even if they did, the locals would almost
certainly not give it to them whether they demanded it or not.

> Turn it into a hissy fight over who _really_ won the war and all you
> get is everyone irritated at each other, and a nicely "improved"
> reputation of _Arrogant American Tourists!_

The arrogance of American Tourists were expressed in far more ways
than fights over who won the world wars.  But all of this is beside
the point at hand.

> And that's pretty much what has happened in the GNU/Linux debate.
> Everyone gets (legitimately) irritated about the matter, and the
> primary end product is that RMS and the FSF have a reputation of being
> somewhat like the _Arrogant American Tourists._  "That Stallman's just
> out to demand credit for everything!"

From what I've read, Stallman's out to get credit for the GNU system,
and nothing else.

> There's a relevant Ghandi quote...
> 
>   "My grandfather once told me that there were two kinds of people:
>   those who do the work and those who take the credit. He told me to
>   try to be in the first group; there was much less competition."
> 
> I think RMS would probably be quite a bit happier if he tried a little
> less hard to take credit for "Free Software."  He'd probably _get_
> more credit, too.

He may be happier (though it's doubtful that he'd get more credit),
but the man doesn't seem interested in that kind of happiness.  The
GNU page on Linux seems to express fairly well the GNU project's
position on this: they were the first to begin the massive attempt to
develop a complete free Unix-like system.  To do so, they created the
C compiler and C library (necessary to build the system), and most of
the programs that a person would need to use the system.  They still
needed a piece of the system: the kernel; a big piece, granted, but
only a piece (a system of one element isn't much of a system, is it?).
All this was done while maintaining the Free nature of the system.
XFree86 fit well into the system, as it was free, as did many other
components not explicitly written by the GNU project.  None of those
individual components are an attempt to create a full operating
system, however.

Since the beginning of GNU, there was another free Unix-like operating
system known as BSD that became available.  That system is also more
than just a kernel (and includes XFree86 among other packages), but
has different goals and a different structure than GNU.

Basically, if you don't believe that a system is any more than the
kernel, then by all means continue to call your system "Linux".  If
instead, you feel that a system is more than a single component then
what you're talking about is a version of GNU that happens to have
Linux at the helm.  Thus, it would be called "GNU/Linux".

Unless, of course, you're talking about a proper GNU system (simply
called "GNU") that uses GNU's official kernel: the Hurd (which is
actually quite usable, despite dubious reports to the contrary).

Cheers,

Kevin.

-- 
Kevin Everets <kevin.everets@alcatel.com>
GPG: 0x86D6C5DD 48FA 053B FB7D 9BF9 FE4C  02D3 6346 055B 86D6 C5DD