1 |
Steven R. Baker wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
... |
4 |
|
5 |
> In order for software to be free, you have to have 4 basic freedoms: |
6 |
> - The freedom to use for *any* purpose. |
7 |
> - The freedom to study how the program works. |
8 |
> - The freedom to share with your neighbour. |
9 |
> - The freedom to improve the software and distribute your |
10 |
> changes. |
11 |
|
12 |
Don't forget the freedom to charge for your work. |
13 |
|
14 |
|
15 |
> All of the software you mentioned is Free Software, that's not what |
16 |
> I'm arguing. I'm arguing that the name "Linux" conveys the wrong |
17 |
> idea. For more information, see: |
18 |
> http://www.gnu.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html |
19 |
> |
20 |
> Actually, that's not true. There's a lot more than just GCC |
21 |
> in *BSD. How do you define what the break-point is for a GNU |
22 |
> system? Percentage of software? Intent? Does this mean that |
23 |
> this should be Gentoo BSD/GNU Linux. |
24 |
> |
25 |
> Okay, once again I made a generalization. I *know* there is more than |
26 |
> just GCC in FreeBSD, GCC is the most important of the GNU software in |
27 |
> FreeBSD. That's not the point. |
28 |
> |
29 |
> Though I don't really go by numbers, I would say that perhaps 10-15% |
30 |
> of the software in an Operating System should be GNU software before |
31 |
> one calls the system "GNU". More importantly that *how much* |
32 |
> software, I think it is important to tell *which* software. Without |
33 |
> GNU, Linux would not exist. Linux could not be distributed as an |
34 |
> operating system (in its current form) without the GNU utilities it |
35 |
> depends on. If FreeBSD decided to eliminate all of the GNU software |
36 |
|
37 |
And without Linux, one could easily argue that GNU would not be in it's |
38 |
present form either. GNU has grown and thrived due to the use of the Linux |
39 |
kernel. Should not, then, by identical argument, GNU be called Linux/GNU? |
40 |
You can't make the claim that Linux would not be around if it were not for |
41 |
GNU, without realizing that GNU is in the same basic predicament. |
42 |
|
43 |
> from their project, they would still have a functional operating |
44 |
> system. They wouldn't have a C Compiler, but they would have a |
45 |
> functional operating system. |
46 |
> |
47 |
> If you don't believe me, go through your system and delete all of the |
48 |
> GNU software. See if it boots. Then, go through a FreeBSD system and |
49 |
> delete all of the GNU software, and see if *that* boots. That's the |
50 |
> difference. (I've done the latter, I know. :)) |
51 |
|
52 |
OK, now delete the Linux kernel and tell me how well your GNU OS works. :) |
53 |
|
54 |
Not being an ass here, but the claims that you (and RMS have) are making |
55 |
apply equally to GNU. Hurd is still not usable, and will probably lag way, |
56 |
way behind Linux kernel development for a long time to come. I am tired, |
57 |
though, of GNU zealots insisting the Linux community acknowledge GNU, but |
58 |
then not realizing that they need to acknowledge Linux. |
59 |
|
60 |
<tongue partly in cheek> |
61 |
And besides, GNU relies on C. Should we then not call it C-GNU? Perhaps |
62 |
C-Linux? |
63 |
</tongue> |
64 |
|
65 |
|
66 |
> Actually, that's not true. The GPL states the restrictions of |
67 |
> usage. Specifically, Section 2 breaks down to saying that if |
68 |
> you use GPL'd software, then you must make you source code |
69 |
> publically available. Thus your argument becomes a non-issue. |
70 |
> |
71 |
> I must be mis-informed of the Python issue. Pardon my ignorance, |
72 |
> I apologize. I *am* concerned about a policy regarding what software |
73 |
> gets put into the Gentoo project though, if there is one. For |
74 |
> instance, do you allow Netscape in Gentoo? It's probably a bad idea, |
75 |
> since Netscape is not Free Software, and usage of Free Software is |
76 |
> wrong. |
77 |
|
78 |
No, no, no. Use of Free Software is not wrong. ;) |
79 |
|
80 |
Ok, now I will make the assumption you meant use of non-free software is |
81 |
wrong. I disagree with that. You are then by implication of wrongness, |
82 |
attempting to remove my freedom to choose what I use, and to choose. |
83 |
|
84 |
Is playing a game on my Sega PlayStation 'wrong'? No. Do you use a VCR? |
85 |
The software inside is not free software. Same for your TV, the power |
86 |
relays, and many, many other items you use in your daily life. There are |
87 |
many instances where free software is not an option, nor does it fit., |
88 |
even RMS acknowledges this. |
89 |
|
90 |
> |
91 |
> Oh, I do care about my freedom a great deal. But how do you |
92 |
> define freedom? Is it an open environment w/out restrictions? |
93 |
> Or is it an environment with only the restrictions you approve |
94 |
> of? |
95 |
> |
96 |
> See the four points listed above. |
97 |
> |
98 |
> The fact is that many talented people put lots of hard work |
99 |
> into this stuff. I define freedom by respecting their choice |
100 |
> as to which license they choose to use. |
101 |
> |
102 |
> I'm not arguing about licenses. The GPL, LGPL, BSD, X, Python, MIT, |
103 |
> MPL, ZPL, NPL, and more are all Free Software licenses. The |
104 |
> difference is that licenses like the GPL *preserve* freedom. |
105 |
|
106 |
Actually, to be correct, they preserve one type of freedom, at the expense |
107 |
of others. Each different type of license serves it's purpose. There is |
108 |
no, nor can there be a, universal license. Witness the existanece of the |
109 |
LGP, which, btw, is what glibc is licensed under. Some are better in some |
110 |
situations than others. Failure to understand this leads to problems. |
111 |
|
112 |
|
113 |
> write a piece of software and release it under the GPL, nobody else |
114 |
> can take my piece of software, modify it, and not release it under the |
115 |
> GPL. Important software has been made possible because of this. The |
116 |
> GNU Objective-C compiler (it's great!) is a good example of this. |
117 |
> NeXT wanted to use the GCC front-end for their compiler, but was |
118 |
> *forced* to release the source code to it, because of the GPL. We now |
119 |
> have a *Free* Objective-C compiler. Also, there are a few programs |
120 |
> that are GPL simply because the GNU ReadLine library requires it. |
121 |
|
122 |
And there are a larger, and growing, number of programs that exist because |
123 |
the LPGL exists, and was used instead of the GPL. |
124 |
|
125 |
|
126 |
> I suggest you read about categories of software at: |
127 |
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html |
128 |
> |
129 |
> For that matter, take a browse around the whole philosophy section at |
130 |
> GNU's website, http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/, and perhaps listen to |
131 |
> (at least the first part) of RMS' presentation at LinuxTAG (it's in |
132 |
> Ogg format). |
133 |
|
134 |
Ogg is way cool :) |
135 |
|
136 |
|
137 |
> I think we pretty much agree on the issues of freedom here, I think |
138 |
> we're just articulating it differently. |
139 |
|
140 |
Actually, I think there are different definitions of 'freedom' being used. |
141 |
but that's partly semantics ;) |
142 |
|
143 |
Oh, and BTW, please quit assuming you are the only one here who has read |
144 |
(in detail, btw) the writings of RMS, and the GNU foundation. Some of us |
145 |
have extemsive experience with it, and some experience with some of the |
146 |
authors of said document. It comes off as (though I *don't* think you |
147 |
intend it to) as arrogance. :( |
148 |
|
149 |
Bill Anderson |