1 |
Steven R. Baker wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> Hi there, I'm interested in getting start with Gentoo. There are a |
4 |
> couple of concerns that I have, however. |
5 |
> |
6 |
> First, I'm a very ardent advocate of the Free Software Movement, and |
7 |
> the GNU Project, so naturally I was wondering why you decided to call |
8 |
> the distribution Gentoo Linux instead of properly, Gentoo GNU/Linux? |
9 |
|
10 |
What someone wants to call a distribution of something using the Linux |
11 |
kernel is none of Stallman's affair. Linus has the trademark on Linux, and |
12 |
he is the final, and sole arbiter of what you can do with the name. |
13 |
Stallman can make decisions relating to 'GNU', but has no authority of the |
14 |
Linux trademark, nor over what an individual decides to call their |
15 |
distribution. A distribution is by definition a collection, as is thus |
16 |
covered under the collection of works parts of copyright law. In fact, |
17 |
this is particularly covered by the GPL, where it states that aggregation |
18 |
is not covered by the GPL where the Product is not based on the GPL'd |
19 |
product. Since all Linux distributions are by definition based on the |
20 |
Linux Kernel, the proper base of licensing is the Linux Kernel. |
21 |
|
22 |
In fact, on other points, the 'GNU/Linux' argument falls flat as well. the |
23 |
acronym GNU stands for 'Gnus Not Unix' and as such bears no relation to a |
24 |
distribution of Linux, or any other operating system. Note further, that |
25 |
the use of GNU tools does not require you use the term GNU in your |
26 |
product's name. As such, there is nothing improper in not doing so. |
27 |
|
28 |
I love RMS as much as the next guy, but in this case he, and you, are not |
29 |
correct. |
30 |
|
31 |
|
32 |
> Also, I was wondering if there is a policy regarding licensing issues |
33 |
> that you follow as a project. IE: do you keep track of which licenses |
34 |
> are compatible with which? A little known fact is that the Python 2.x |
35 |
> license is incompatible with the GPL, so no GPL code can be used with |
36 |
> Python without explicit written permission from the author. What kind |
37 |
> of safeguards do you have against this? |
38 |
|
39 |
|
40 |
This 'little known fact' is false. The python license only applies to |
41 |
_Python_, and developing derivatives. The license of Python is no more |
42 |
relevant to what Gentoo is doing than the C/C++ licenses are. Since we are |
43 |
not modifying python in any way, merely developing products using a |
44 |
_language_ there is no concern for how the language itsself is licensed. |
45 |
Me writinbg a python script is no more a derivative of python than you |
46 |
compiling a program in C is a derivative of C. It is the author of the |
47 |
code, and their license that is the sole issue with developing products |
48 |
that use python. |
49 |
|
50 |
For example, if I, Bill Anderson write a nifty python program, and you |
51 |
decide you want to use some of my code, you must get _my_ permission; the |
52 |
license of python is irrelevant. |
53 |
|
54 |
Another, more concrete and relevant example: |
55 |
RedHat wrote a set of python rpm libraries in python. IF, for some reason, |
56 |
we wanted to use those libraries (perhaps as a base for an rpm-ebuild |
57 |
converter .. oooh neat idea) we would need to look at the license that |
58 |
Redhat put on their code, not the python license. |
59 |
|
60 |
Sorry if any of this sounds harsh, or perhaps bitter, but I have been |
61 |
through these issues over and over again, especially in the BigCorp I work |
62 |
for, and have been in discussion with the legal dept., and some of the |
63 |
parties named herein. |