Re: [gentoo-dev] Distribution Name

[Bill Anderson]

Steven R. Baker wrote:

...

> In order for software to be free, you have to have 4 basic freedoms:
>     - The freedom to use for *any* purpose.
>     - The freedom to study how the program works.
>     - The freedom to share with your neighbour.
>     - The freedom to improve the software and distribute your
>       changes.

Don't forget the freedom to charge for your work.

 
> All of the software you mentioned is Free Software, that's not what
> I'm arguing.  I'm arguing that the name "Linux" conveys the wrong
> idea.  For more information, see:
>     http://www.gnu.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html
>
> 	Actually, that's not true.  There's a lot more than just GCC
> 	in *BSD.  How do you define what the break-point is for a GNU
> 	system?  Percentage of software?  Intent?  Does this mean that
> 	this should be Gentoo BSD/GNU Linux.
>
> Okay, once again I made a generalization.  I *know* there is more than
> just GCC in FreeBSD, GCC is the most important of the GNU software in
> FreeBSD.  That's not the point.
>
> Though I don't really go by numbers, I would say that perhaps 10-15%
> of the software in an Operating System should be GNU software before
> one calls the system "GNU".  More importantly that *how much*
> software, I think it is important to tell *which* software.  Without
> GNU, Linux would not exist.  Linux could not be distributed as an
> operating system (in its current form) without the GNU utilities it
> depends on.  If FreeBSD decided to eliminate all of the GNU software

And without Linux, one could easily argue that GNU would not be in it's 
present form either. GNU has grown and thrived due to the use of the Linux 
kernel. Should not, then, by identical argument, GNU be called Linux/GNU?
You can't make the claim that Linux would not be around if it were not for 
GNU, without realizing that GNU is in the same basic predicament.

> from their project, they would still have a functional operating
> system.  They wouldn't have a C Compiler, but they would have a
> functional operating system.
>
> If you don't believe me, go through your system and delete all of the
> GNU software.  See if it boots.  Then, go through a FreeBSD system and
> delete all of the GNU software, and see if *that* boots.  That's the
> difference.  (I've done the latter, I know. :))

OK, now delete the Linux kernel and tell me how well your GNU OS works. :)

Not being an ass here, but the claims that you (and RMS have) are making 
apply equally to GNU. Hurd is still not usable, and will probably lag way, 
way behind Linux kernel development for a long time to come. I am tired, 
though, of GNU zealots insisting the Linux community acknowledge GNU, but 
then not realizing that they need to acknowledge Linux.

<tongue partly in cheek>
And besides, GNU relies on C. Should we then not call it C-GNU? Perhaps 
C-Linux?
</tongue>

 
> 	Actually, that's not true.  The GPL states the restrictions of
> 	usage.  Specifically, Section 2 breaks down to saying that if
> 	you use GPL'd software, then you must make you source code
> 	publically available.  Thus your argument becomes a non-issue.
>
> I must be mis-informed of the Python issue.  Pardon my ignorance,
> I apologize.  I *am* concerned about a policy regarding what software
> gets put into the Gentoo project though, if there is one.  For
> instance, do you allow Netscape in Gentoo?  It's probably a bad idea,
> since Netscape is not Free Software, and usage of Free Software is
> wrong.

No, no, no. Use of Free Software is not wrong. ;)

Ok, now I will make the assumption you meant use of non-free software is 
wrong. I disagree with that. You are then by implication of wrongness, 
attempting to remove my freedom to choose what I use, and to choose.

Is playing a game on my Sega PlayStation 'wrong'? No. Do you use a VCR? 
The software inside is not free software. Same for your TV, the power 
relays, and many, many other items you use in your daily life. There are 
many instances where free software is not an option, nor does it fit., 
even RMS acknowledges this.

>
> 	Oh, I do care about my freedom a great deal.  But how do you
> 	define freedom?  Is it an open environment w/out restrictions?
> 	Or is it an environment with only the restrictions you approve
> 	of?
>
> See the four points listed above.
>
> 	The fact is that many talented people put lots of hard work
> 	into this stuff.  I define freedom by respecting their choice
> 	as to which license they choose to use.
>
> I'm not arguing about licenses.  The GPL, LGPL, BSD, X, Python, MIT,
> MPL, ZPL, NPL, and more are all Free Software licenses.  The
> difference is that licenses like the GPL *preserve* freedom.

Actually, to be correct, they preserve one type of freedom, at the expense 
of others. Each different type of license serves it's purpose. There is 
no, nor can there be a, universal license. Witness the existanece of the 
LGP, which, btw, is what glibc is licensed under. Some are better in some 
situations than others. Failure to understand this leads to problems.


> write a piece of software and release it under the GPL, nobody else
> can take my piece of software, modify it, and not release it under the
> GPL.  Important software has been made possible because of this.  The
> GNU Objective-C compiler (it's great!) is a good example of this.
> NeXT wanted to use the GCC front-end for their compiler, but was
> *forced* to release the source code to it, because of the GPL.  We now
> have a *Free* Objective-C compiler.  Also, there are a few programs
> that are GPL simply because the GNU ReadLine library requires it.

And there are a larger, and growing, number of programs that exist because 
the LPGL exists, and was used instead of the GPL.

 
> I suggest you read about categories of software at:
>     http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html
>
> For that matter, take a browse around the whole philosophy section at
> GNU's website, http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/, and perhaps listen to
> (at least the first part) of RMS' presentation at LinuxTAG (it's in
> Ogg format).

Ogg is way cool :)


> I think we pretty much agree on the issues of freedom here, I think
> we're just articulating it differently.

Actually, I think there are different definitions of 'freedom' being used. 
but that's partly semantics ;)

Oh, and BTW, please quit assuming you are the only one here who has read 
(in detail, btw) the writings of RMS, and the GNU foundation. Some of us 
have extemsive experience with it, and some experience with some of the 
authors of said document. It comes off as (though I *don't* think you 
intend it to) as arrogance. :(

Bill Anderson