Re: [gentoo-dev] License criteria for Gentoo

[Moritz Schulte]

"Kevyn Shortell" <kevyn@×××.com> writes:

Hello,

let me first clarify this: it is not my intention to nor could I
"force" anyone to use the name GNU/Linux instead of Linux.  But what
we can do of course is discussing this topic.

> I think that's a bastardization of the name, and it's doing a
> disservice to everything GNU stood for.

I don't understand that.  I don't understand in what way mentioning
"GNU" in "GNU/Linux" does damage to what GNU stands for.

> It takes away from the efforts of those who've worked there, and
> focuses everything on RMS's attempt to get recognition for GNU.

Uhm, I also don't understand that.  If I understood you correctly, you
say that calling the system GNU/Linux "takes away from the efforts of
those who've worked there"?  I think, the opposite is the case.  By
not mentioning GNU in the name of the system, we narrow the efforts of
the people working on the GNU packages, which make the system usable.

> Note that he doesn't want you to change the name to Linux/GNU. He
> wants top billing for GNU, he wants GNU/Linux, So why is GNU more
> important than Linux?

Well, of course, Linux and GNU components are the most essential
pieces of the system, but they are essential in a different way.  I
could imagine that the order "GNU/Linux" has historical roots.  The
GNU Project was working on this free, Unix like operating system,
named "GNU".  Many components of GNU were finished, but the Hurd core
was not ready yet.  At that time Linux envolved and it became obvious
that all the GNU components combined with the Linux component can form
a more or less complete operating system.  So the name of system
wouldn't be GNU anymore - but GNU/Linux.

> So while we're at it, We then should be accurate and then call it
> GNU/KDE/SUN/IBM/QT/Python/Drobbins/partsrippedfrombsd Gentoo Linux.

Well.  There is one difference.  If you remove the GNU component of
that system, you are in serious trouble, as you _have_ to replace
that.  Otherwise it wouldn't be fun.  But, if you remove what you call
"KDE/SUN/IBM/QT/Python/Drobbins/partsrippedfrombsd", you would still
have the GNU/Linux system in a working state.

Of course, we can build a system, which has as few GNU components as
possible.  There are alternative libc implementation, there are not
only GNU compilers, the GNU {shell,file,find,etc}utils could be
probably very easily replaced with BSD code or something else.  I
would not call that GNU/Linux then.  But the system we are talking
about contains essential GNU software - without it, the system would
be quiet useless.  It "runs" - I mean, you can also use a nail to put
a hammer into the wall.

> Seriously, take a look at how people look at GNU, It's a toolset,
> it's a compiler, it's a source license, but since when did it become
> a religious movement, that required people to change their very
> name, in order to honor it?

Well, I don't like at GNU like if it would be only a toolset.  Maybe
you should browse around http://www.gnu.org/ to get a better overview
about what GNU is.  Nor is it something religious for me.  And of
course GNU does not require or force any project to change their name.
It's a free decision for those project wether they want to support GNU
or not.

> Linux is an operating system, it is a collection of parts.

I don't want to disagree with the general sentence "Linux is an
operating system" - simply because it is obvious that there are
different definitions of "operating system" (I remember for instance
that Andrew S. Tanenbaum is using the term "operating system" in his
book "Modern Operating Systems" to refer to "kernels").  I can only
say that I don't call Linux an operating system, since I prefer
another definition.

> GNU is just one of the many parts, giving in to changing the name
> for GNU today just means 3 months down the road, the next license
> that comes along will want the same thing.

As I already wrote in a different mail, it's not about licenses, it is
about software components.  And, I have to agree with you - if Gentoo
plans to substitute all these essential GNU components in Gentoo, then
it indeed wouldn't make much sense to change the name to GNU/Linux
now.  But I am not aware of such plans.

> There is a reason why RedHat, SuSE and Mandrake basically ignored
> RMS, It makes NO sense to change the name, If RMS wants credit, fine
> add information in the docs, [...]

Not RMS wants credit, he doesn't ask Gentoo to use the term RMS/Linux.
He wants credit for the GNU Project, which means: many, many other
people.

> It's suicide to take a marketable name, and ruin it by adding GNU in
> front of it.

"ruin it"?

> Brand names are marketable because they are unique. They are
> memorable, they have a image associated with it. GNU/Linux, Just
> frankly is the worst marketing plan I've ever heard of.

Besides the fact that I don't see the point (I don't know much about
marketing) - why is marketing that important for Gentoo?

> Debian was probably hoping to get more publicity from it, as they
> were in danger of well, ending up where they are...

Debian is very different from Gentoo, we know that.  But you make that
sound so negative - just because it is different?  As far as I can
see, Debian is a quite successfull operating system.

> I'd rather quit developing, than bow in to political pressure from
> RMS or anyone else.

Sorry, "pressure"?  I remember RMS's mail to this list and seriously,
I cannot find a single bit of pressure in it regarding the term
GNU/Linux.

Thanks.

		moritz
-- 
moritz@×××××××××××××××.de - http://duesseldorf.ccc.de/~moritz/
GPG fingerprint = 3A14 3923 15BE FD57 FC06  B501 0841 2D7B 6F98 4199