Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
Especially since those companies should be using the name GNU/Linux.
Richard Stallman? Pfh. What we all want to know is what Simon Cowell thinks!
Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.
The end of the article has this classic quote from Stallman:
"Most of the time, when people call something 'Linux', it's the GNU system with Linux as the kernel. Maybe this policy will encourage people to call it GNU,"
Which he follows up with:
"I prefer to say GNU/Linux' so as to give the kernel's developer a share of the credit."
My, how generous!
Sheeesh, is a little professionality* too much to ask for? I guess perhaps they should recode their webpage. Although of course they have the advertisements working perfectly.
* Yes, I'm aware this isn't an actual word.
"What names you're allowed to call a program is a side issue."
Linux is now "Fluffy Marshmellow Prophylactic" I'm certain that'll do wonders for Linux's continued growth.
If Linux were to fall out of trademark protection, there would be nothing to prevent unauthorised, shady and unscrupulous individuals and organisations from using the term for cheap knock-offs, cashing in on the name or other products which harm the reputation of Linux, and by association, ourselves.
So Linux is open for modification and distribution..... as long as Linus feels that you aren't harming his trademark? [sarcasm] Wow, that's certainly open.[/sarcasm]
I guess with Linux's userbase (both corporate and private) continuing to grow, Linus (or at least a lawyer working on his behalf) feels that perhaps they need to begin regulating Linux a bit more closely. Perhaps they will slowly begin to make it not-quite-so-open as well.
So, Stallman says that this issue is just blowing smoke, and that it distracts from the issue at hand, namely his pet causes...
Well, I would say that names are incredibly important, possibly even more so than all these political causes (simply because people can't be bothered to read long political theses, but can deal with name recognition).
Why do you think Linux has proven so much more "successful" that the *BSDs in the business sphere?
The name "Linux" has brand recognition - at the moment, it's trendy, hip and cool (go the Peter Russel reference =)...and companies want to be seen to be riding the wave. I've seen idiotic people say Linux is cool, I want to use Linux, with absolutely no idea what it is, simply because they've heard that all the geeky computer people are apparently using it.
Torvalds, and all the other contributors have worked hard to build up this name, and if companies can be made to respect this, then all the better.
cya,
Victor
Don't worry, Stallman 2.0 is being released in September.
Never trust journalism that seeks to promote conflict between parties. It is too easy to take words out of context, to ask people to make statements on subjects they would rather ignore, and to do what journalists are generally paid to do - fill the pages with controversy and "news".
Point 1: RMS is the genius behind the GPL, the FSF tools, and has dedicated his life to making Linux, however you call it, come true. Insulting RMS is a sign of ignorance, bad manners, or bad faith.
Point 2: Linux is a mark and a commodity technology. The goal of trademarking Linux and enforcing that mark through licensing is to protect the "brand" from those who seek to harm it. But that is a short-term logic, and it ignores the underlying fact: a commodity technology needs no name, no brand, because it does not compete on that basis. No-one ever trademarked "TCP/IP" (afaik) and it would have been both ridiculous and counter-productive to have tried.
So RMS is spot-on, even if he does not explain it quite the way I'd like to hear. The name you give Linux is only meaningful if you're one of the vendors supporting it today. It's what Linux is, and does, not its name, that guarantees its place as the commodity OS of the future.
My blog
To you they may matter, but Stallman speaks for himself, not everybody, and, apparently, not you, ok?
To him the name doesn't matter, because he's not after being successful in the way you imply. He doesn't care what the companies use.
To Stallman only the existance of a free development platform matters, and that existance is practically guaranteed due to the GPL and GNU by now (Technically HURD isn't necessary anymore, because the Linux Kernel is GPL'ed). If everybody used it, that'd be a bonus, but the mere existance is the one-and-only goal.
Try to see him more as the philosopher he is, not caring about marketing and commercial success, but taking care his ideas (Specifically that it should always be possible to use a free development platform) continue to exist (And one website, hosted privately, practically could do that), no matter what.
Oh, and, everybody, please don't automacally assume I'm on Stallmans "side" here, I just don't like him being misunderstood. He's an idealist, which is not necessarily moronic.
RMS claiming that "what you call it doesn't matter" is just so ironic.
How we know is more important than what we know.
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.
Amazing magic tricks
Linus claims that Stallman doesn't matter.
GNU as a trademark for computer software has been registered by the FSF for a number of years.
Imagine how many witty acronyms involing "LUG" wouldn't make sense if we changed them all to "GLUG". My personal favourite witty acronym for a Linux User Group is HUMBUG: the Home Unix Machine Brisbane User Group. Notice how they delecately try to include everyone? Theoretically you could go to a HUMBUG meeting with your Windows machine and not get snubbed, as long as you had SFU installed. Oh, and Apple geeks, they've invaded the place since OSX became the norm.
How we know is more important than what we know.
So Linux is open for modification and distribution.....
Yup, that has never changed.
as long as Linus feels that you aren't harming his trademark?
Yup, that hasn't changed, either. Linux (the kernal) is free for modification and redistribution. Use of the name Linux(R) is subject to trademark. In part to prevent say SUN, from marketing Solar Linux, which is really just Solaris with linux compatability.
[sarcasm] Wow, that's certainly open.[/sarcasm]
Yup, it is. Do what you like, just don't besmirtch the name. Thats just horribly closed. What would Stallman say if someone made a piece of software called GNU, but it was completly proprietary? What if some hardware company makes a software modem that only works with Windows, and calls it "the Linux modem"?
I guess with Linux's userbase (both corporate and private) continuing to grow, Linus (or at least a lawyer working on his behalf) feels that perhaps they need to begin regulating Linux a bit more closely.
The name, yeah.
Perhaps they will slowly begin to make it not-quite-so-open as well.
No less open than it's ever been.
If Mr. Edison had thought smarter he wouldn't sweat as much. --Nikola Tesla
I feel he's right.
Linux may be trademarked, but it has never been enforced. Tons and tons fo people use "Linux" without any kind of permission from the trademark holder.
It was my understanding that the only reason this trademark existed is because it was recovered from some jerk who actually trademarked "Linux" as an operating system for his own nonexistant product name then tried to extort everyone.....
It seems unfortunate that Linus was basically forced to take the Linux mark away from the shyster lawyer who registered the mark and was then using it to shakedown people -- once Linus got it, he had to protect it. So then he's forced to play a game that he really doesn't want to play in the first place (otherwise he would have grabbed the mark, charged companies in the first place, and so on).
I never really got why trademarks are important, but this sorry case (and the Unix (TM) AT&T stuff) makes it clear -- this stuff, in the real world, really does matter.
I'm surprised Tux is not trademarked. The BSD world works a bit different: McKusick trademarked the red-demon who represents BSD. That's his, and you need permission to use it. Although I guess you could make your own red-devil mascot -- but that's a trademark issue, and perhaps you'd better talk to a lawyer.
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_
This is a serious question. If commercial entities are no longer allowed to use "linux"* designation, how do they let someone know what they are using. As far as I know even the distros that use original names still describe themselves as a "linux based" operating system. You can't call it "RedHat" based either or "Mandrake" based.....
Also, how does someone get a trademark on a term that has been in general use for a decade without previous trademark protection? My understanding is that this trademark would never have been granted in the US because of the lack of enforcement. There is a good reason that unprotected trademarks cannot get protection, it's becaue you end up in this type of ridiculious situation where they can now go after everyone who has been using it openly for years without so much as a peep. There is little difference between this and the submarine patents that have irked the computing community for many years. They should have used another new and unique word or combination to trademark ( "Linux certified"? ) rather than linux.
Oh, and while I'm at this rant... In the past the community decided what was acceptable for the linux name. Although they may not have had much legal "teeth" the community would quickly respond to people who misused the name or the license. Now we have one entity that is claiming all future protection for the name, it's bullshit. We now have another corporate entity that is claiming providice over our work, work that we gave openly to the community. It is wrong and I will not abide by it.
*Approved use only, what about non-approved use.
From TFA:
You know, I wouldn't have a problem with RMS trying to get "GNU" in there if he didn't want to put it on the front of the name. The way he wants it, the name sounds like "GNU Linux", so it sounds like a product of the FSF ("GNU Emacs", etc.)
Whenever it comes to that naming issue, I prefer Linux/GNU instead. As RMS states on the GNU site, "the whole system is basically GNU, with Linux functioning as its kernel" and "Many people have made major contributions to the free software in the system, and they all deserve credit." So Linux/GNU should be just as good as GNU/Linux.
Has anyone pointed out that FSF holds the trademark to GNU ?
Seems appropriate.
libguestfs - tools for accessing and modifying virtual machine disk images
Lots of people who develop software don't know much of anything about copyright or licencing issues. Plenty of them pick GPL because they have the impression that open souce means GPL. Everyone else uses it, it must be good, right? Rarely do developers really stop and consider what a license does for their software, and what the best license would be. Certainly this is due in part to RMS constantly pushing GNU everything at people.
The problem some people have with the GPL is that lots of things that really don't need to be GPL'd are, and are less useful as a result. For example, why is readline GPL? This means people making software with GPL incompatable licenses (even if they are open source) cannot use it. Is it really a justifiable concern that someone might use readline to make a commercial, non-free version of readline? There's no incentive to do that, and even if someone did, the open source version would still be there and just as good. So if readline were licensed under a more free license like a BSD or MIT or ISC license, or even the LGPL it would be a more useful piece of software for more people.
However, that isn't often why people complain about RMS. RMS is an obnoxious, loud-mouthed jerk, who thinks he can re-define the english language to suit his agenda, and is constantly trashing other people's efforts just because they don't share his particular views. This is why so many people dislike RMS.
Ummm, IIRC this is a kind of follow on from a few weeks back. However, back then the general consensus was that Jeremy Malcolm was a money grabbing, scientologist nutter. Why has everyone started taking this seriously now that RMS has weighed into it. I _still_ havent heard anything even paraphrased as coming from Linus himself ...
Linux is a kernel, right?
;-)
When did Linux become the operating system?
I must have missed something, or was it just mass media brain washing that has caught on? But last time I looked, when I installed something like SuSE, Red Hat, or Debian, it was an operating system built on open source tools, which compirsed of the linux "kernel", some variant of the unix file system, a whole suit of gnu replacements for unix commands, and a range of open source packages from folk like Apache and such?
If we were to talk about perhaps Solaris, then indeed, we are talking about the Solaris kernel, the Solaris operating system tools which were all written from scratch, alebit with access to the source from BSD and SYS V variants, and agian a unix file system and some packages from folk like Apache and such, but in this case it's a complete solution from Sun and it's called Solaris.
The same can be said surely for the likes of OpenBSD, NetBSD, and FreeBSD, where they are complete systems, built around kernels, from scratch, although in each case they too lean heavity on the GNU replacements for Unix commands and tools.
Windows for example once refered to itself as Windows NT, where the NT part was essentially the kernel, designed and built by some smart folk who had a hand in the likes of OS/2 and VMS kernels and operating systems if I recall corrently, but it was clear that Windows was the GUI and NT was the underlying kernel.
Mac OS X even now is pretty open about the split between it's Mach kernel, Darwin core, and BSD / NeXT Step tools, but we don't call Mac OS X "Mach" do we - nope, it's OS X, or if you're like me and you favour what uname -a tells you, it's Darwin
I think Stallman summed it up pretty well when he ended the piece with:
quote:
Stallman thinks the issue of naming the product is not so clear cut. "Most of the time, when people call something 'Linux', it's the GNU system with Linux as the kernel. Maybe this policy will encourage people to call it GNU," Stallman told the Sydney Morning Herald. "I prefer to say GNU/Linux' so as to give the kernel's developer a share of the credit."
Now I do agree that GNU/Linux is perhaps a mouthfull, but on the other hand, I think it's particularly lame to refer to the GNU/Linux operating system as just Linux, so perhaps it's time for a new name, label, whatever, for whatever it is many of us run.
It could be like the Musician formerly known as Prince, now known as some Egyptian hyrogliph - we could have the operating system formerly known as Linux, now known as #$%^&#!?
It might actually be worth many of you taking time to read Stallman's FAQ on GNU/Linux over at:
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html
It does go a long way to answering and clearing up much of what is in this horribly messy series of threads and sub threads, basically emotive and guess work, rather than fact.
For example, from that URL:
quote:
Why do you call it GNU/Linux and not Linux?
Most operating system distributions based on Linux as kernel are basically modified versions of the GNU operating system. We began developing GNU in 1984, years before Linus Torvalds started to write his kernel, and we developed a larger part of the resulting system than any other project. In fairness, we ought to get equal mention.
quote:
Why is the name important?
Although the developers of Linux, the kernel, are contributing to the free software community, many of them do not care about freedom. People who think the whole system is Linux tend to get confused and assign to those developers a role in the history of our community which they did not actually play. Then they give inordinate weight to those developers' views.
Calling the system GNU/Linux recognizes the role that our idealism played in building our community, and helps the public recognize the practical importance of these ideals.
quote:
--- Dez Blanchfield http://WebSearch.COM.AU "Will work for bandwidth.."
The quote from the article is:
'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.'
On first reading this, I got the idea that the whole thing was a quote from RMS, since it was from an interview with him.
However, the second sentence (after the ellipsis) is a quote from the article, not from RMS.
To add *some* weight to it...
1) GNU tools can be found in the following installations:
* FreeBSD, et al
* OS X
* SCO
* Solaris (GNU added by my IT department?)
2) However, I've not heard RMS insist these be called GNU/BSD, etc. -- only GNU/Linux.
RMS thinks that certain libraries (such as readline) should be GPL so that developers who want to use the libraries are forced to GPL their software. He believes that if there are enough good GPL libraries, it will be an incentive for developers to write GPL software (so they can use those libraries). Actually, in the specific case of readline, it's probably because readline was extracted from bash (which is GPL) and it was easier to release it under the same license than to track down all the original authors (copyright holders) and get their permission to use a different license.
chown -R us ~you/base
Actually, people were using GNU tools long before Linux came around. They were just using them on proprietary platforms.
Without a readily available source of free system software, Linux would have been taking a dive into an empty pool. A kernel is worthless without a system around it, and vice versa. However, the supply of free system software is and was much more limited than the supply of kernels -- and it's easier to install GNU on your SunOS system than Linux on that same system.
When RMS said that "names don't matter", I thought it was pretty damn obvious that he meant "names don't matter to the freedoms Free Software provides". Upon reading all these comments, I guess it wasn't so obvious after all.
If you read the GPL, it says:
Trademarks are a legal way of enforcing something the GPL states as being favourable.
Yeah, when it comes to marketing, names matter. But in the context of what RMS actually promotes, Free Software, being able to use somebody else's trademark is not a necessary freedom that must be protected. In fact, if anything, the opposite is true.
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
Many pieces of engineering are named after the one critical component that is essential for it's operation. It's evern sillier when you're attaching a conflicting brand name and you're not the creator of the critical component.
What makes you say that GNU Compiler Collection (gcc) and GNU C Library (glibc), both maintained by FSF, are less critical to a free operating system than Linux, maintained by Linus Torvalds? A GNU system could run on a *BSD kernel for all I care.
This wasn't a press release or anything. The Sydney Morning Herald asked RMS for an interview, and he gave it. They asked him some questions, and he answered them. Then SMH published a news article about it, obviously losing some of the context, but terribly so. Then ZDNet copied a few quotes from that news article and created a totally misleading title, probably made up a sensationalistic fact out of thin air ("Stallman's words put him at odds with some members of the free software movement"), and wrote an article which took the quote even more out of context. Then Slashdot picked up the story, repeated the misleading title, and stuck in the quote without any context whatsoever. Suddenly, RMS is a whining brat for giving an interview.
Because 100% of the C/C++ programs are built with gcc, including the MIT/KDE software. People are forgetting that the FSF not only contributed the standard utilities and libraries, but ALSO gcc.
Without gcc being available to Linus, it is doubtful whether there would even have been a kernel to compile. Linus would have had to resort to a commercial compiler, which back then typically cost around $500.
The most common ones then came from either SCO or ATT.
The widespread adoption of Linux would've been slowed significantly if people had to fork over $500 for a development kit, and probably another $200-500 for a commercial OS, just so they could run Linux.
This is why we're indebted to the FSF for their efforts. And they are right to insist upon credit for themselves. Without the FSF, Linux wouldn't be nearly as far along as it is today. Giving the FSF due recognition seems quite appropriate; and frankly, I just don't see people giving the FSF the respect it deserves (witness your comments), let alone due credit.
And don't forget that it was RMS himself who encouraged Linus to adopt the GPL for his kernel. Without the GPL, it is also questionable how far along Linux would be today.
The best way to predict the future is to create it. - Peter Drucker.
Does that seem like idealist whacko to you?
Once upon a time, somebody named Richard Stallman got pissed off because he needed to see the source code to a program so he could fix it, and the code author told him he was restricted by an NDA.
http://www.oreilly.com/openbook/freedom/ch01.html
He was so miffed at this that he went off and founded GNU (Gnu's Not Unix), meant to be a free version of Unix.
http://www.gnu.org/
"dedicated to eliminating restrictions on copying, redistribution, understanding, and modification of computer programs." But there was (and still is) one problem with the GNU operating system...it didn't have the kernel (the part of the OS that talks to the hardware at the lowest level), which project was known as the HURD
http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/hurd.html
which is STILL "not ready for production use, as there are still many bugs and missing features."
Enter Linus Torvalds, who, unaware of the GNU project, undertook to write his *own* kernel upon which he would then put an operating system that was to be, you guessed it, a free version of Unix. Linus Torvalds and Richard Stallman got adjascent seats on an airplane with their luggage mixed up or something; however they met, they met, and with Torvalds' kernel and Stallman's operating system it was indeed the birth of the blues.
Fade out, fade in. Today, we have the Free (as in freedom *and* beer) Operating System that is part GNU, part Linux, and even part BSD (I stumble upon the occasional BSD program running on my Linux system ), and part everything else. In a commercial world, there'd be trademarks and copyrights and logos and every other byte of binary on your disk would be the stupid trademark/OS EULA/NDA warning of legal repercussions, etc. Windows users, get *any* hex editor, open *any* Windows program, you'll see "Microsoft" written in the ASCII somewhere: this is what I'm talking about. But this is Linux. Nobody really owns it all per se, because we basement hackers and renegade computer users and indignant MIT lab rats wrote it all ourselves, and don't really care about becoming millionaires or dominating the world about it, so long as we have our free system.
Please can that be the annals?!?! Slashdot anals are not a pleasant place to be... ;-)
The revolution will not be sent as an email attachment
Some in the media are portraying this as disagreeing with Linus, but they just don't get it. The trademark issue is orthogonal. You can freely use, modify, and redistribute the software that is typically known as "Linux" freely - that is what RMS cares about. Linus cares about that, and making sure that the name "Linux" isn't ridden down by fly-by-night outfits that might look to make a quick buck.
The fact that this is getting stirred up now is fishy, because the trademark has existed in the U.S. for quite some time.
Fade out, fade in. Today, we have the Free (as in freedom *and* beer) Operating System that is part GNU, part Linux, and even part BSD (I stumble upon the occasional BSD program running on my Linux system ), and part everything else. In a commercial world, there'd be trademarks and copyrights and logos and every other byte of binary on your disk would be the stupid trademark/OS EULA/NDA warning of legal repercussions, etc. Windows users, get *any* hex editor, open *any* Windows program, you'll see "Microsoft" written in the ASCII somewhere: this is what I'm talking about. But this is Linux. Nobody really owns it all per se, because we basement hackers and renegade computer users and indignant MIT lab rats wrote it all ourselves, and don't really care about becoming millionaires or dominating the world about it, so long as we have our free system.
Now, let's pull our heads into the Physical, Real World for a minute and quit worrying about hypothetically this and pedantic definition that: What we're talking about is what most of the world calls "Linux". So, when you go shopping for Linux distros, you don't type "free software distros" in Google, and when you need help installing Linux, you don't go into a #GNU chat and say, "I need help installing my free software". You call it Linux, Slashdot calls it Linux, we all found this discussion because we recognized the name of Linux.
Now, the copyright infringement you're hearing about has, in fact, already started. Porn sites are already trying to snag hits using the word "Linux". No, I'm not kidding, and I'm not about to post links to them and let them enjoy a lot of hits. Type "Linux" into search engines with the most unexpected keywords that would only imply you were looking for guides, HOWTOs, and such, and you'll get the occasional Easter Egg. This demonstrates the shaky legal ground that Linux is on, and why we're doing this.
PS, when you hear somebody blowing off their big bazoo about "Linux", "Open Source", "Free Software", or "GNU", take into account that Stallman, Torvalds, and their tribal bard, Eric S. Raymond, are 99% less likely to be full of hooey than anybody else.
"Linux claims Stallman doesn't matter"
Oh come on man. Please don't criticize if you don't know what you're talking about. Just because they modded you Informative rather than Flamebait (signifies how clueless the mods are), I'll address the points you make:
``and here comes Stallman with his, "Hey, news people, the issue isn't the Linux trademark! It's that it's not called GNU to give me credit!"''
That's not what he said at all. Quoth RMS:
"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."
So he said that naming doesn't matter, what matters is that you can freely modify and redistribute the software.
As for the GNU/ prefix, it's true that in a typical Linux distribution, far more of the code comes from GNU than comes from Linux. Your arrogance and ignorance w.r.t. the contribution of GNU to the success of Linux makes me think that maybe it wouldn't be so bad if the GNU project were more loudly credited for their work.
``The fact is, GNU was going nowhere without Linus' kernel.''
Give me a break. People were using GNU utilities on their proprietary Unixen all the time. If you look at a contemporary proprietary Unix system, you will probably find GNU software there. Often, the GNU utilities are more usable than the vendor supplied ones; if the vendor even supplies them. If you look at a BSD system, they invariably use the GNU C compiler. And what utilities do you think are used to build the Linux kernel?
``HURD (the intended GNU OS) is still a pipe dream because Stallman couldn't write a kernel if you paid him.''
Come on man. Stallman was one of two people working at Lisp Machines Inc before he started GNU. He and the other guy (what was his name again?) developed a system that was competitive with the one developed by the much larger Symbolics. Do you _really_ think RMS doesn't know how to write a kernel?
The HURD was never successful, because (contrary to the rest of GNU) it incorporated too many revolutionary ideas. It had to be better that the monolithic kernels found in Unix. Sadly, microkernels were (and are still) badly understood, which is why HURD development stalled. Then along came Linux and the free BSDs, and now people simply don't see a point in developing HURD anymore.
Interestingly, Linux allows most drivers to be built as modules, which brings it closer to the microkernel model that any other Unix kernel has been. With the sheer amount of gadgets, filesystems, etc. that are supported, modularity is almost a necessity. Could it be that the world is converging toward the model that HURD tried to push from the beginning?
``The facts are, that Linux was a kernel project without the rest of the OS, and GNU was....an incomplete OS. The two coming together didn't put one over another.''
Yes. So why are you saying that "GNU was going nowhere without Linux"? Sounds like you're putting one over another, doesn't it?
``A common statement is that "Linux is just the kernel" but that's not quite true. It's also a "brand name" that companies slap on their products''
You're spot on about the brand name, but it really is true that Linux is just a kernel in a technical sense. Linux needed GNU to be competitive with the free BSDs, which provide both a kernel and a userland. That's what the statement "Linux is just a kernel" really means.
``['Linux' is] also a shorthand term used by users of GNU/Linux (who do know there's plenty of GNU in there).''
Seriously, no. Do you know how many people have equated Linux with Red Hat? Do you really think that leaves a realistic chance that these people will realize the contribution the GNU project has made?
Too many people think that glibc, GNU make, GNU C, GNU emacs, etc. etc. etc. were developed for Linux, or, worse, these are the utilities that "Linux" supplies. RMS is whining about this issue, because it hurts him. How would you like it if
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
I find that a lot of the time where people are saying 'Linux' they mean to say (or at least should be saying) 'Open Source'. After all, Linux (as in the kernel itself) really is a small part of the whole system, and as and end user I'm not going to care whether my Gnome desktop, Firefox browser and OpenOffice.org productivity suite are running on a Linux, BSD or even OpenSolaris kernel!
I wonder about the utility of trademarking the term Linux - in reality rejecting a license application is going to be difficult at best, and to do so will go against the spirit of open source in general. My use of the term Linux is not necessarily going to appeal to everyone, and vice versa, but that shouldn't result in an application being denied; consider SpamLinux, PornSurfingLinux, BibleBashingLinux, etc.
All that gcc brought to the table was support for non-x86 architectures.
"All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?"
I honestly don't know why there is such hostility towards GNU or such a willngness to people to close their eyes to vast importance and goodness of what they've given us. Yeah, some mythical others could have achieved something, but they didn't. GNU was there to take care of it.
Apparently Stallman only says GNU Linux. I think Leo Laporte invited him to be on TWiT podcast. He insisted that everyone only say GNU/Linux or he wouldn't come. I believe after that requirement, the TWiT crew cancelled their invitation.
Stallman also made of fool of himself on Leo's old show, "The Screen Savers" on TechTV before it was raped by G4. Apparently, Stallman forced everyone to say GNU/Linux, so Leo got his revenge by having Stallman sing the Free Software Foundation ditty. Although Stallman didn't see the humor in it, the viewers sure did.
Of course, the SMH might also have just ripped off of an RMS press release, but then ZDNet is TWICE removed from the source, so why not just post the damn SMH link? It's non-reg? And it's a hell of a lot more independent media than ZDNet, which isn't really a news source, fellas. Thanks.
Oh, and the link: http://smh.com.au/articles/2005/08/25/112456296535 8.html
Instead of watered-down ZDNet thing, you should read the original Sydney Morning Herald interview.
ZDNet failed to see the importance of the following paragraph (so they just omitted that):
Without this, ZDNet article might give a false impression that Mr. Stallman is inconsistent (i.e., on one hand he says that the name is irrelevant, on the other hand he implies that the name is important, i.e. GNU/this GNU/that).
It would have to be GNU/Linux® in order to comply with the trademark requirements.
It says so quite clearly here:
http://www.linuxmark.org/attribution.html
And page or post mentioning it should have the following attribution somewhere:
"Linux® is the registered trademark of Linus Torvalds in the U.S. and other countries."
Obviously anyone using the word Linux without the ® as specified by the web page is using it incorrectly.
Deleted
No, since /. moderation is more or less a democratic process, you sense the majority's opinion. You should call something "bias" if it falsely represents the minority's opinion as the only truth. Which is fine; there's nothing wrong with stating your opinion, but at the end of the day, when you lose a democratic election, you shouldn't whine that the voters were wrong in not agreeing with you. If you do, you're basically arguing that democracy doesn't work and that everybody should just shut up and listen to you.
I would concur, except that they should shut up and listen to ME instead, of course. ;-)