🚀 go-pugleaf

zoo@winternet.com (david d `zoo' zuhn) writes:
>Oh.  So anyone except the FSF should not be allowed to mention FSF or GNU? 

Actually, I do have a problem with outsiders using the term "GNU" in
some cases, because it leads to confusion (people sending bug reports
to GNU when the GNU folks have never even heard of the tool) and, if
the tool is poorly written, can reflect poorly on the FSF developers
and the image of the GNU project.  Someone in the UK did something
called "GNU threads", for example, and it seems to have been abandoned,
but you'll occasionally see questions about it here.

>Then Lucid GNU Emacs (now called XEmacs) should not be called GNU
>Emacs, even though it was developed for a commercial enterprise
>(Lucid, and now Sun).

This is different, since most of the code in XEmacs is from FSF's GNU
Emacs.  If Lucid *hadn't* said GNU it would have been more misleading
than if they *had*.

>The FSF doesn't have a monopoly on naming something GNU software.

They could have had it, if they had chosen to (by trademarking "GNU").
Then no one would have been able to name a piece of software "GNU xyz"
without their permission.  They chose not to.

Cygnus actually trademarked the term "sourceware".


-- 
-- Joe Buck 	<jbuck@synopsys.com>	(not speaking for Synopsys, Inc)
Phone: +1 415 694 1729