🚀 go-pugleaf

   It might be okay to laud Cygnus as an example of a 'good' company.
   They should not be allowed to use the name GNU or FSF * in any way * 
   when marketing the other part of their tree. They should call them
   cygnus tools whatever and no mention of the FSF or GNU should be made.

Oh.  So anyone except the FSF should not be allowed to mention FSF or GNU? 

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).

Then Linux/FreeBSD/NetBSD should not be allowed to use the name GNU or
FSF, since they don't ship the exact FSF releases either.

In fact, the Cygnus releases are labelled as Cygnus releases, and
version numbers only somewhat correspond to the closest FSF releases,
and their Kerberos offering isn't called GNU Kerberos (in fact, due to
trademark restrictions, it's not even called Kerberos, it's Cygnus
Network Security).

The FSF doesn't have a monopoly on naming something GNU software.
They do have a monopoly on making FSF releases, but that's only
reasonable.  Cygnus has a monopoly on Cygnus releases, and Armadillo
Zoo Enterprises has a monopoly on A.Z.E releases.  Such is business.

Why is it such a crime that someone is making money via the free
software market?  Or is it just that someone else is doing it?  


-- 
 david d `zoo' zuhn   | Armadillo Zoo Enterprises, St. Paul, MN
 zoo@armadillo.com    |  unix generalist (and occasional specialist)
                      |  http://www.armadillo.com/ for more info