1 |
All the software that makes up a base system isn't GNU. The |
2 |
default DB is BerkeleyDB. Perl falls under your choice of |
3 |
licenses. Dcron is under BSD. Python has it's own license. |
4 |
Daemontools falls under DJB's license. Do you use BIND? An |
5 |
MTA other than Exim? |
6 |
|
7 |
Why limit your scope of vision? This is all open-source |
8 |
software. |
9 |
|
10 |
I didn't mean *all*, I made a generalization. And I didn't mean |
11 |
"base" as in the base install of gentoo. I meant the bulk of the |
12 |
programs that you need to have to have a functioning system. I'm |
13 |
specifically talking about the toolchain (gcc, gdb, glibc, and |
14 |
friends) and the findutils/binutils/shellutils/textutils/bash/etc. |
15 |
|
16 |
Open source is the wrong term. APSL is "open source" but it's not |
17 |
Free software. Open source usually means more or less the same thing, |
18 |
see: |
19 |
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html |
20 |
|
21 |
In order for software to be free, you have to have 4 basic freedoms: |
22 |
- The freedom to use for *any* purpose. |
23 |
- The freedom to study how the program works. |
24 |
- The freedom to share with your neighbour. |
25 |
- The freedom to improve the software and distribute your |
26 |
changes. |
27 |
|
28 |
All of the software you mentioned is Free Software, that's not what |
29 |
I'm arguing. I'm arguing that the name "Linux" conveys the wrong |
30 |
idea. For more information, see: |
31 |
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html |
32 |
|
33 |
Actually, that's not true. There's a lot more than just GCC |
34 |
in *BSD. How do you define what the break-point is for a GNU |
35 |
system? Percentage of software? Intent? Does this mean that |
36 |
this should be Gentoo BSD/GNU Linux. |
37 |
|
38 |
Okay, once again I made a generalization. I *know* there is more than |
39 |
just GCC in FreeBSD, GCC is the most important of the GNU software in |
40 |
FreeBSD. That's not the point. |
41 |
|
42 |
Though I don't really go by numbers, I would say that perhaps 10-15% |
43 |
of the software in an Operating System should be GNU software before |
44 |
one calls the system "GNU". More importantly that *how much* |
45 |
software, I think it is important to tell *which* software. Without |
46 |
GNU, Linux would not exist. Linux could not be distributed as an |
47 |
operating system (in its current form) without the GNU utilities it |
48 |
depends on. If FreeBSD decided to eliminate all of the GNU software |
49 |
from their project, they would still have a functional operating |
50 |
system. They wouldn't have a C Compiler, but they would have a |
51 |
functional operating system. |
52 |
|
53 |
If you don't believe me, go through your system and delete all of the |
54 |
GNU software. See if it boots. Then, go through a FreeBSD system and |
55 |
delete all of the GNU software, and see if *that* boots. That's the |
56 |
difference. (I've done the latter, I know. :)) |
57 |
|
58 |
Actually, that's not true. The GPL states the restrictions of |
59 |
usage. Specifically, Section 2 breaks down to saying that if |
60 |
you use GPL'd software, then you must make you source code |
61 |
publically available. Thus your argument becomes a non-issue. |
62 |
|
63 |
I must be mis-informed of the Python issue. Pardon my ignorance, |
64 |
I apologize. I *am* concerned about a policy regarding what software |
65 |
gets put into the Gentoo project though, if there is one. For |
66 |
instance, do you allow Netscape in Gentoo? It's probably a bad idea, |
67 |
since Netscape is not Free Software, and usage of Free Software is |
68 |
wrong. |
69 |
|
70 |
Oh, I do care about my freedom a great deal. But how do you |
71 |
define freedom? Is it an open environment w/out restrictions? |
72 |
Or is it an environment with only the restrictions you approve |
73 |
of? |
74 |
|
75 |
See the four points listed above. |
76 |
|
77 |
The fact is that many talented people put lots of hard work |
78 |
into this stuff. I define freedom by respecting their choice |
79 |
as to which license they choose to use. |
80 |
|
81 |
I'm not arguing about licenses. The GPL, LGPL, BSD, X, Python, MIT, |
82 |
MPL, ZPL, NPL, and more are all Free Software licenses. The |
83 |
difference is that licenses like the GPL *preserve* freedom. If I |
84 |
write a piece of software and release it under the GPL, nobody else |
85 |
can take my piece of software, modify it, and not release it under the |
86 |
GPL. Important software has been made possible because of this. The |
87 |
GNU Objective-C compiler (it's great!) is a good example of this. |
88 |
NeXT wanted to use the GCC front-end for their compiler, but was |
89 |
*forced* to release the source code to it, because of the GPL. We now |
90 |
have a *Free* Objective-C compiler. Also, there are a few programs |
91 |
that are GPL simply because the GNU ReadLine library requires it. |
92 |
|
93 |
I suggest you read about categories of software at: |
94 |
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html |
95 |
|
96 |
For that matter, take a browse around the whole philosophy section at |
97 |
GNU's website, http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/, and perhaps listen to |
98 |
(at least the first part) of RMS' presentation at LinuxTAG (it's in |
99 |
Ogg format). |
100 |
|
101 |
I think we pretty much agree on the issues of freedom here, I think |
102 |
we're just articulating it differently. |
103 |
|
104 |
As far as Dan is concerned, I know that he agreed with me once upon a |
105 |
time when we used to work on Stampede together, because he's one of |
106 |
the ones that enlightened me. If he's changed his mind since Fall |
107 |
1997, I don't know, but it is possible. :P |
108 |
|
109 |
By the way, I'm not looking for an argument, and I appreciate your |
110 |
willingness to discuss this. |
111 |
|
112 |
-Steven |