Stallman Claims Linux Trademark Doesn't Matter

Tontoman writes "ZDNet UK reports on an interview with Richard Stallman with the Sydney Morning Herald. From the article: '"Free software means you're free to run it, study it, change it, redistribute it, and distribute modified versions the way cooks do with recipes. What names you're allowed to call a program is a side issue." The Linux trademark became an issue last month after a lawyer acting on behalf of Linux creator Linus Torvalds wrote to 90 Australian companies asking that they sign a statutory declaration waiving exclusive rights to the trademark's use.'"

Comments

Re:Same old RMS

[Haeleth]

I've always wondered, if you've got Acrobat on your system, would Stallman want you to call it Adobe/GNU/Linux?

No, he would want you to remove it immediately and install a free PDF reader instead. Or, preferably, to stop using formats like PDF altogether in favour of something that's not so tied to a particular proprietary implementation. :P

That aside, the point is that the average "Linux" distribution does rely on a GNU foundation in a way that it doesn't rely on X, or Gnome, or KDE, or TeX, or any of the other major software packages that people like to cite when arguing against the GNU/prefix. You can run the Linux kernel without any of those, and a lot of people do. But it's pretty difficult to get a Linux kernel at all without using the GNU compiler collection, and it's pretty unusual to use Linux without the GNU userland.

Sure, you could try to compile the kernel with Intel's compiler instead, if you only want to run it on x86. And you could replace most or all of the GNU userland with the BSD equivalents, or with another alternative such as BusyBox. But firstly, most people don't; and secondly, RMS doesn't insist that such systems be called GNU/Linux anyway. The fact is that the Linux system, in its best-known configuration - the one configuration that RMS demands people refer to as GNU/Linux - is fundamentally reliant on the work of the many collaborators in the GNU project.

It's true that "GNU/Linux" is ugly, and it's true that hardly anyone uses that name, and it's even true that RMS appears to be obsessed with this minor issue well beyond the bounds of what's reasonable. But you can't deny that he has a valid point - even if, like most people, you choose to reject the conclusion he draws from it.

business model

[rnd()]

Free Software / OSS should be a licensing model, not a philosophy. As a licensing model it has clear advantages and disadvantages over other licensing models.

As a philosophy it is fraught with problems, the most significant problem being the utter destruction of much of the financial incentives that exist today for people to sit down and build software. It is hypocritical to enjoy the fruits of someone's capitalist labor and then attempt to take those fruits (a form of looting) and claim some philosophical justification.

Re:Same old RMS

[ShieldW0lf]

RMS' point was that it doesn't matter what it's called because the code's still there and improving. Microsoft could grab a copy, release it with source and call it Microsoft Rainbow. I could grab a copy and call it the Shieldwolf System. That's the strength of all that GPL software, and the quality of all the software is the source of the GPL's strength. He probably doesn't like seeing resources diverted to defending a trademark when they could be, in his opinion, better used in some other way. Which is a fair enough point of view.