Re: [gentoo-dev] Distribution Name

Bill Anderson wrote:

> Steven R. Baker wrote:
>
> > Hi there, I'm interested in getting start with Gentoo.  There are a
> > couple of concerns that I have, however.
> >
> > First, I'm a very ardent advocate of the Free Software Movement, and
> > the GNU Project, so naturally I was wondering why you decided to call
> > the distribution Gentoo Linux instead of properly, Gentoo GNU/Linux?
>
> What someone wants to call a distribution of something using the Linux
> kernel is none of Stallman's affair. Linus has the trademark on Linux, and
> he is the final, and sole arbiter of what you can do with the name.
> Stallman can make decisions relating to 'GNU', but has no authority of the
> Linux trademark, nor over what an individual decides to call their
> distribution. A distribution is by definition a collection, as is thus
> covered under the collection of works parts of copyright law. In fact,
> this is particularly covered by the GPL, where it states that aggregation
> is not covered by the GPL where the Product is not based on the GPL'd
> product. Since all Linux distributions are by definition based on the
> Linux Kernel, the proper base of licensing is the Linux Kernel.
>
> In fact, on other points, the 'GNU/Linux' argument falls flat as well. the
> acronym GNU stands for 'Gnus Not Unix' and as such bears no relation to a
> distribution of Linux, or any other operating system. Note further, that
> the use of GNU tools does not require you use the term GNU in your
> product's name. As such, there is nothing improper in not doing so.
>
> I love RMS as much as the next guy, but in this case he, and you, are not
> correct.
>
>
> > Also, I was wondering if there is a policy regarding licensing issues
> > that you follow as a project.  IE: do you keep track of which licenses
> > are compatible with which?  A little known fact is that the Python 2.x
> > license is incompatible with the GPL, so no GPL code can be used with
> > Python without explicit written permission from the author.  What kind
> > of safeguards do you have against this?
>
> This 'little known fact' is false. The python license only applies to
> _Python_, and developing derivatives. The license of Python is no more
> relevant to what Gentoo is doing than the C/C++ licenses are. Since we are
> not modifying python in any way, merely developing products using a
> _language_ there is no concern for how the language itsself is licensed.
> Me writinbg a python script is no more a derivative of python than you
> compiling a program in C is a derivative of C. It is the author of the
> code, and their license that is the sole issue with developing products
> that use python.
>
> For example, if I, Bill Anderson write a nifty python program, and you
> decide you want to use some of my code, you must get _my_ permission; the
> license of python is irrelevant.
>
> Another, more concrete and relevant example:
> RedHat wrote a set of python rpm libraries in python. IF, for some reason,
> we wanted to use those libraries (perhaps as a base for an rpm-ebuild
> converter .. oooh neat idea) we would need to look at the license that
> Redhat put on their code, not the python license.

ebuild->rpm works.
rpm/spec->ebuild whould not be too difficult with redhat-spec because they
install to a tempdir too. SuSE-specs
could not be convertet automatic because they install directly to the
filesystem when building rpm's.
Imagine building a complete redhat distribution with the ebuild system. :-)

achim~

>
>
> Sorry if any of this sounds harsh, or perhaps bitter, but I have been
> through these issues over and over again, especially in the BigCorp I work
> for, and have been in discussion with the legal dept., and some of the
> parties named herein.
>
> _______________________________________________
> gentoo-dev mailing list
> gentoo-dev@g.o
> http://www.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev