Slashdot Mirror
GNU Inside?
Erbo writes "Is it "Linux," or "GNU/Linux"? For years, that question has been bitterly contended. Now, Jon "Maddog" Hall and others want to resolve this conflict, by creating a "GNU Inside" logo that distros could use on their packaging, Web sites, etc. Will a truce finally be called in this long-running flame war? ZDNet has the details. (Spotted in Linux Today) "
You can have a useable system without X. It's possible to boot without X. It's not possible to boot and run ANY program without GNU. It's also not possible to boot and run ANY program without Linux. It is possible with the two combined. Therefore, they are both core components of the OS.
That's the most conservative defining line of the OS. More liberal definitions might include X and what not, but that's not terrible relevant; the point is that GNU is a core component of the OS by any definition.
"The idea of a slogan that we and the "Linux" people could agree on is an interesting idea, and I would be glad to do that. However, that would be in parallel with using the name "GNU/Linux" to inform people about the origin and nature of the system."
He likes the slogan idea but only as a _supplement_ to people calling it GNU/Linux, not as a compromise. He still wants top billing.
Opinion time: I think he really is miffed at the attention Linus T. gets and so jumps up and down and yells "Me too! Me too!" How very childish.
-MikeR-
I have no problem with GNU (and Richard Stallman) getting the credit
they deserve. Indeed: since peer recognition is a large part of the
reason that open source folk do what they do, this is highly
desirable.
I do, however, have a problem with Linux's popularity being co-opted
by the FSF. Co-opted as in insisting that "Linux" be referred-to as
"GNU/Linux."
Perhaps "GNU Inside" branding would be a good compromise.
- pmitros@mit.edu
Of course, one of the only people who actually knows how things are has a @gnu.org email address! The point is not that RMS has "won" by having GNU software distributed with Linux to millions of computers. That's not the point. If people don't realize what the software is about, he hasn't won anything. It's tough enough convincing people that Linux doesn't actually cost anything. It's even more difficult to convince them that it's even more free than that. RMS is trying to force that issue, and I for one salute him. Now I'm not calling it GNU/Linux, and I probably never will. GNU by itself is a very, very cumbersome "word", and that's only worse. But at least I know what GNU is and I try to evangelize it as much as I can. And I would be more than happy to have such a sticker on my box (though the official gnu from gnu.org is very ugly :))
So:
1. It does not matter that Linux is not GNU.
2. It does not matter that all of the software on Linux is not GNU.
3. It does not matter that much of the software on Linux is GNU.
It's the ideas behind it, and FSF is very good at promoting those ideas. That isn't to say Linus isn't, but that's not his main goal.
Credit and name recognition are rewards. Money is a reward. Xerox probably tried to keep Stallman from learning its printer controller source code (thus compelling him to found the FSF) because it wanted money out of him. The free software model he created necessarily misallocates money; not everyone who deserves the money for coding something receives that money.
Now, RMS has never tried to berate people into donating money to the FSF -- he does solicit donations, and actively encourages people to contribute, he doesn't insist on it. When people in an audience say "I just bought a Redhat system," he doesn't say, "Write the FSF a check for the same amount, right now, or I won't answer your question."
But now that something that really matters to him is at stake -- credit for GNU -- he insists on getting it. (At least he's trying to coerse people by annoying them into submission, and not by forcing folks to sign binding agreements.)
So why is GNU important then? Because it's released under the (L)GPL.
How much code has been written by RMS and other key members of the FSF? Quite a bit, and some very significant bits, but the currenct feature rich and relatively bug free state of GNU is also due to a whole community that has been using and improving GNU tools since the eighties. Again, this would not have been possible without the GPL.
So the FSF should not strive to take explicity credit for things that a whole community contributed to. They should take credit where credit is due, namely for creating the legal and intellectual framework that enabled this and other outstanding worldwide collaborations.
Instead of "GNU Inside", I suggest GPL Inside, or something more verbose and less Intelish such as "This CDROM contains software freely licensed under the GPL and other open source licences" or whatever is more sexy.
Some final remarks: As a fluent but non-native speaker of English, the word GNU, especially when used in place of "new" really turns my stomach. Also, I have been using GNU utilities from the first day I worked on proprietary Unices about 10 years ago. I like Emacs very much, and also used a lot of GNU replacements, in particular gcc, for proprietary software, mainly because documentation was easily available (ever tried to find the original manual of commercial software in a University lab?) and they just performed consistently and well across platforms. Still, I'd never imagined saying I was using GNU/AIX or GNU/SunOS, even though I was very aware that my most important tools where GNU's. So what's the big deal about GNU/Linux?
And something else I was musing on... The way I interpret things in the free software community, is that you write code that fills a niche that you see, and you get credit from your peers for doing it. Going by this, I really don't understand where RMS/GNU is coming from... After all, just about any competent admin is going to ditch the (usually crappy) tools that ship with their OS of choice and install the GNU tools... By doing so, they know about GNU, they now the quality of the tools they are choosing to use, why must we have the GNU name forced down our throats? It's not like there are many unix-types that don't know about the GNU tools... So, to me, since GNU already has the respect of its users / peers, who are they trying to get here with all this incessent cheerleading?
Anyway, long paragraph. Rant mode off.
Yes this is my real UID. No, it was not bought from EBay.
This is interesting because it reflects my views quite closely: GNU/Linux would be a proper name to give to a GNU distribution released under the auspiscies of The GNU Project. However it is not so simple: Not only is GNU the name of a free "not Unix" operating system, but it also embodies the idea of such a thing.
ANY free operating system that is compatible with Unix could be called GNU. All "Linux" distributions meet this requirement to a large extent (though some, like Suse have an uncomfortable amount of non-free code), and calling them GNU/Linux is not incorrect. Of course, neither is calling them "foo", but if the idea of software freedom is important to the distribution bundler, the GNU moniker should be adopted because it came first.
Futhermore, there are other reasons why the name GNU/Linux should be adopted:
1) Much of the core O/S code is GNU code (that is produced under the auspiscies of the GNU project). Without it nothing runs but the kernel. the same is not true of, say, X: lots of systems do not use a GUI.
2) Technically, if we separate the core O/S code into kernel and non-kernel parts, adopting a / convention makes a certain amount of sense: certainly we can envision GNU/Hurd, or BSD/Linux.
3) RMS deserves credit. This is not a rational reason, but an emotional one. Still, if we wish to credit the man for his work, and are producing a free O/S distribution, calling it GNU/Linux is the right thing to do. I suppose this is Debian's reasoning.
In my discussions with RMS, I pointed out that trying to encourage the use of a proper noun that others don't like, in the face of an already popular moniker is difficult, and encouraging the use of GNU as an adjective instead might meet with greater acceptance. However, this flies in the face of the valid technical argument above (as RMS gently pointed out to me).
To his credit, in "Open Sources", RMS does appear to take this approach, when talking about "GNU/Linux systems". He as also reminded me that GNU, as an adjective already has a specific meaning: software produced under the auspiscies of the GNU project. (I suppose that their release of a GNU system on a Linux kernel would then be called "GNU GNU/Linux"). "GNU Linux" without the slash isn't acceptable: it would mean a Linux kernel release produced by the GNU project.
To those that say that GNU/Linux is too much of a mouthful, the response could be "Well, just call it GNU, then." It all comes down to what you want to convey: a particular distribution, or an instance of a free operating system. The latter really does deserve the GNU moniker. It should not be a surprise that RMS appears to care more about conveying the idea of software freedom than market branding.
As for RMS being a stubborn crank, supposedly insulted by use of the Linux momiker when talking about a GNU/Linux system in his presense: I have to strongly disagree. I made the honest mistake of calling Debian's distribution "Debian Linux" when it is clearly called "Debian GNU/Linux" (in email), and he simply asked me to use the correct name, please. He did not insist that I call Red hat's distribution "Red hat GNU/Linux", though I'm sure he'd like me to (I made clear why I do not, and he did not seam miffed in any way -- disappointed perhaps, but that did not come across.). Methinks stories of his arrogance are just plain FUD.
RMS and I are not in perfect agreement about what should be called GNU/Linux. He has convinced me to encourage others to consider calling their Linux distributions GNU/Linux to reflect the technical nature of the system as well as stress it's free nature as well (and this I do). It is possible to engage the man in debate without having to be in perfect agreement.
Bottom line: If RMS, the father of the modern renaissance of free software, says that he named a free Unix-like operating system "GNU", and wants others to use that name, I am not about to argue that he is wrong, only that people aren't required to heed this particular wish. I suspect that some people want to call some free operating systems something else and get RMS blessing to do so. This ain't gonna happen. RMS has stated his position and is standing by it. It's funny that others seam to be uncomfortable disagreeing with him. Perhaps they are not as sure of their convictions as he is?
In Liberty, Rene
Personally, i don't understand what people argue about. Let me give some analogies.
There's an operating system floating around called "Windows," created by a company named Microsoft. Since this name (Windows) is a rather generic one, the OS is usually referred to as Microsoft Windows, MS-Windows, or something of the like. This is mainly to ensure that when it is referred to in (possibly overheard) conversation, others don't get the wrong impression and assume that high(ish) intellectuals are indeed speaking of various sheets of glass.
As it happens, there is another operating system floating around called "MacOS," another wildly imaginative title, additionally descriptive, and referring to its own purpose in life, which is to act as the operating system for Macintosh machines. The company that makes this operating system and these machines is called Apple, and the machines themselves are oddly often referred to as Apple Macintosh machines (though Macintosh Apple is arguably better grammar). The Apple Macintosh machines have little to do with the point here; the main point is the name of the operating system MacOS. Rarely is MacOS referred to as Apple MacOS, as the name itself describes what it is. No one will mistake MacOS for an operating system that runs on macintosh apples, McDonald's Big Macs, MAC semis, or MAC machines. There is no need to call the OS Apple MacOS, so the Apple is left out of most conversations completely.
Yet another interesting, floating OS is something named "BeOS," equally as imaginitive a name as "MacOS," yet offering nicer slogans. This operating system was written by a company named Be, and was indeed named after the company itself -- along with the BeBoxes it was intended to operate. Here too, there is no "Be BeOS," as that would be tacky and annoyingly redundant. As far as mistaking the operating system for something unrelated, well, many people may not have an idea what the OS is, and most others may have not yet tried it, but rarely do people volunteer that you may have indeed meant "cabbage" or "beehive" or something similar.
Well, this brings us to the point of Linux. If you choose to think of the GNU community as... well, maybe not the creators, but at least partners in the development of Linux, you don't have to include the name. No one is going to mistake Linux for a geometric expression or a type of car (well, some might, but there's not a lot you can do if that's the case). Until someone replaces everything GNU on a linux system with other software and distributes it, there will be no need to add a GNU to the name of Linux. It is honestly understood.
If you'd like to be a little more argumentative about it, GNU utilities are not restricted to Linux. I run a number of GNU utilities on the Solaris systems i administer, and i much prefer them to those written by Sun. FreeBSD encorporates a number of GNU utilities into their distributions. I've even gutted windows and replaced its shell (explorer) with tcsh, using many GNU utilities for its interface, when i was stuck with a windows 95 machine. I suppose i could have called this GNU/Windows, but why? I honestly don't understand the argument.
Loren Osborn
Loren Osborn
...just as soon as FreeBSD gets renamed GNU/BSD. I run emacs and the CygWin ports on my NT laptop - should I call it a GNUtop?
The whole debate is silly. Linux is Linux, BSD is BSD, HURD can be the GNU/OS or whatever they want to call it. The kernel and design should be sufficient to determine the name. Hey - SCO owns the SVR5 code from which (theoretically) all *NUXes spring (in design if not in code) - maybe we should call the GNU (when a HURD-derived version ships) SCOGNUX! Or POSIXGNUX! I hope I made a point here without making anyone's head explode from bad acronyms.
My bottom line: Linux is a great operating system, built by a group of brilliant people, using the terrific GNU tools and utilities. And no Unix would be complete without them. But RMS really needs to take his ball and go home on this one. Anybody who knows anything about Linux understands the magnitude of RMS's contribution to the software world and knows Linux would probably not have existed without him. Now please make all this go away!
What's in a name, anyway? A rose, by any other name, would still wither and die...
-- Josh Turiel
"2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
It would be really nice to see and end to this fairly stupid and devisive conflict. I understand many people's annoyance at being asked to call their Linux box GNU/Linux, but at the same time, I think that the FSF does deserve credit here. It's not just RMS looking for the limelight; a lot of people have put in a lot of time, from the early 80s to today, to create a damn fine collection of essential utilities. Utilities that, without which, much other free software would never have been written. Utilities that are far and away better than their counterparts on other UNIXes. I think the LOC argument is misleading; how much of our current software base would exists without things like a compiler, a C library, a linker, shells, editors, etc etc? I agree that it's dumb to have to trip over my tongue to say the name of my operating system, but at the same time, let's honestly recognize those who have put in thousands of hours of work for our benefit.
--
Ian Peters
At the time I posted my reply, the note I'm replying to was rated "5". Why?
NiceGuy has written a flame, saying nothing that hasn't been said before on Slashdot. Now, he has a right to his opinion, but moderation isn't supposed to be about "I agree/I disagree".
No new facts are presented; worse, the posting puts quotes around statements that are not being made (RMS has never claimed that Linux is good only as a stop-gap), an unethical technique in a debate (it's called a straw man argument).
The purpose of moderation is to try to move the gems to the front. This was not a gem; a similar posting that made the opposite point would also not be a gem.
RMS is not claiming that the GPL requires the name GNU/Linux to be used, so it is nonsense to claim that he is somehow making a mockery of the GPL.
RMS appears to want attention to be focused on GNU for two purposes, and credit is the less important of those two purposes (though I think it is more important to him than he admits). His more important purpose seems to be to get people to think of themselves as developing a GNU system in the sense that every program on that system would be free software -- that Linux not just be yet another platform like Windows or BeOS that software companies port all their software to and every significant program is proprietary software.
RMS seems to think that if he gets people to say GNU/Linux, people will then ask "What is GNU", and then when they find out, they will get excited about the free software message. Like any good activist, he doesn't care if he pisses people off ... sometimes I think he thinks if he hasn't pissed anyone off lately, he isn't doing his job as an advocate.
As for me, I don't think that all software must be free, but I think that more free software is a good thing, and that without RMS making noise and annoying people and inspiring other like-minded people, the trend in the Linux community would quickly be to just try to be another platform for proprietary software developers. That's a losing goal, since Microsoft is much better at that.
There's something stupid and something important about this "how should we call it" war.
The silly part is that a name is not really important, linux could be named Freenux and our lives would continue the same. A name is not important, the important is what describes and in the "thing" we should put our efforts, not in how to call it. There's a long way to go, things to be made and remade but we can cut this stupid flame war and turn people's heads to what's important.
GNU made a BIG contribution to free software, but if people forgets that is people's fault (who usually is very ungratefull).
IMHO, Linux is Linux, GNU is GNU and BOTH of them create an enviroment that we can call GNU/LINUX, but please leave the option to people (yes that ungratefull people)
Just my 2 cents
Pronounce GNU/Linux with the GNU being silent, so it would sound like "Linux". Now to solve the extra typing.
Seriously, I have to agree with other comments regardng "where to stop". I think my Linux installation uses more than just GNU. I use my VIM editor more than any other tool, so maybe I'll call my Linux VIM/Linux. After all, developers needed an editor to create the source for GNU.
~afniv
"Man könnte froh sein, wenn die Luft so rein wäre wie das Bier"
~afniv
"Man könnte froh sein, wenn die Luft so rein wäre wie das Bier"
Richard von Weizs
I had no idea what GNU or the FSF was before I started using Linux (I didn't even know it existed). It wasn't until I started reading the COPYING, man, info, source files, etc, etc, that came with my distro (some couple years ago) that I started wondering what GNU was. It didn't take long for me to answer my own question (one search on the net was more than enough). From those days on, I have been a OSS/FSF fanatic. I know there are many others like me out there - for this reason, the FSF owes much to the Linux community (just as the Linux community has felt in debt to the FSF and has promoted the use of FSF utilities). In this sense, the GNU-Linux relationship is just that, a relationship - both complement and need each other. Linux users are probably the biggest supporters of the FSF and Linux wouldn't be as far along w/o the FSF.
That said, I'm getting really tired of this flame war. Why take a chance of slowing the Linux momentum by changing the name - this would hurt both GNU and Linux. The FSF will naturally recieve more donations as Linux grows because Linux is so tied to GNU and companies that want to further Linux (ie IBM, Intel) can do so by funding the FSF.
If anything, RMS should work on his on distro or Linux standard that is based on GNU. (ie GNU/Linux 1.0 complient) - in a sence, something like POSIX. This makes a lot more sense than trying to brand the kernel, which has very little to do with GNU
\forall code \in C, \frac{\Delta readability(code)}{\Delta t} < 0
I believe this represents a decay in the spirit of free software. Once upon a time, before I got involved, before it became a power in itself, it was a fantastic tool and toy. Now, it is being reduced to a bunch of dogma by those who seek to benefit personally from it. It all revolves around the issue of "Who owns free software?" The only answer that can preserve its spirit, that can prevent it from degenerating into a status symbol or a bitter contest is "Everyone."
No one seems to be getting the central issue here. It's not about the hard work of the members of the FSF, or the XFree86 Team, or Linus and his cadre of kernel hackers, or any other group. It's about the whole, the atmosphere, the new great wonder of the world that a vast network of individuals has created. But I can't be surprised about what has happened. People want power. People like exclusive groups. Free software, to these people, has either become too accessible or too far out of their grasp.
Item 1: Accessibility. Many (not necessarily most, and certainly not all) *BSD users have cited that they have fled to it because "too many people are using Linux." To them, Linux was an exclusive club, but no longer. I've seen GIMP plugins that are only free for use under open-source operating systems. I've seen people protest the porting of GTK to Windows because they believe it is an inferior operating system. We must stop treating free software like it is ours; we must treat it as everyone's.
Item 2: Controllability. This is what RMS is worried about. Once upon a time, he used to be part of the scene. He created some great software: a compiler, a complex editor. Then, he got RSI. Now, he can mostly just sit back and watch as free software slips out of his grasp, as his dream of a GNU system goes in directions he never intended. So what does he do? He attaches himself to the one most visible place: the name. Microsoft is big on control. Ever see that "Designed for Windows" logo they grant? Without that, no major software chain will risk buying your Windows software. In the same vein, I see Debian Linux turning into Debian GNU/Linux after the FSF gets involved, and journalists claiming that the "true" name of Linux is GNU/Linux after talking to RMS.
People need to realize that nobody owns free software, that it has become like an organism with its own free will. We can either try to foster this organism or we can try to control it. But like we would from the childhood experiment of transferring an outdoor plant to an indoor pot and watching it wilt and die slowly, we must realize that trying to push free software around is not the way to improve the situation. We must contribute in a positive fashion, with software, or through dissemination. We must not try to put free software in a fishbowl for only us, or force free software into a corral so it runs where we want it to. This will only lead to fragmentation, a breaking of the great network into little conflicting pieces. It may be impossible to prevent, but we must try to keep this great thing we have going for as long as we can.
Debian, so far, has been very popular in academia, hobbyist and research circles, but doesn't appear to be a big player in the retail and commercial fields.
I thought Debian was one of the most popular distributions out there, second only to RedHat. Umm. Maybe SuSE.
I submit that one of the reasons for Debian's lackluster showing is because of its name.
Are you serious?
I seriously doubt the GNU/Linux name has any influence on its popularity.
Alejo.
How many, of all the people who know what Linux is, know what GNU is?
/Linux part and reply that my box runs the GNU OS. I know, I'm leaving things out, but I think that both the freedom deservers more publicity than the technical excelence (which is, as Raymond points out, just one consequence of the first these days) and Stallman deserves a LOT more publicity than Torvalds or Cox.
I would be less than 1/5th does.
Okay, you and I know what GNU is, but does your mother, your brother, your uncle and your grandmother, all of them who know what Linux is, know what GNU is?
I would bet less than 1/10th of the people who have heard of Linus Torvalds have heard of Richard Mars Stallman. How many times have you read about Torvalds on your newspaper? How many times have you read about Stallman?
On the other hand, I agree that pronouncing GNU/Linux is harder.
Some people have criticized Stallman and the FSF supporters by saying they should add a clausule to the GPL saying that the name of anything GPLed must begin with "GNU/". That is, IMO, childish. The FSF is not legally forcing anyone to call Linux GNU/Linux, just making a polite request.
There are some guys trying to make up a complete Linux distribution with no GNU software. That fails to see the point. If it wasn't because of GNU software such as Emacs and GCC, there would be no such thing as what we know as (GNU/)?Linux.
Stallman says the reason why we should call it GNU/Linux is to keep in mind the real strength of the system: the freedom. If you call it GNU/Linux, you are reminding everyone how it all started back in 1984. Linux is usually associated with speed, stability and technical characteristics. What is, on the other hand, the first thing that comes to your mind when you think about GNU? Okay, technical excelence, but they state it everywhere, their main objective is to build a free operating system, not just a technically excelent one. By calling it GNU/Linux you are mentioning the freedom behind it, its principal characteristic.
And since GNU/Linux is rather hard to pronounce, I at times leave out the
Just my thoughts, you are welcome to call it Linux, GNU/Linux, Jose or whatever you want.
Alejo.
I was just looking through the mail archives and look what I found: Re: How Linux Users Do it. Where RMS says: 'The idea of a slogan that we and the "Linux" people could agree on is an interesting idea, and I would be glad to do that.'
It is an interesting discussion. Please read some of the other messages in that thread. RMS says some interesting things such as this: 'But if you have seen some GNU fanatics trying to fight, I guess it must happen. If and when you come across one, could you please show me? I will be glad to explain to him that this kind of fighting isn't a good thing to do. Chances are those people would listen to me and stop.'
Also, I just found a wonderful quote in an article about the controversy which addresses this very well:
Deven
"Simple things should be simple, and complex things should be possible." - Alan Kay
I really don't care what Stallman thinks the operating system should be called, it's entirely his perogative. However, I think it's extremely arrogant and egotistical of him to insist everyone else call it that as well. It's not like anyone's infringing on a trademark or copyright, and for him to infringe on my freedom to call it anything I want irks me. If I want to make a distribution and call it "GNU-SUCKS/Linux" there's nothing he can do to stop me as long as I redistribute the source code.
The whole "It's a GNU system with a Linux kernel until HURD comes out" strikes me a so insulting and rude I can't believe people still talk to him. It seems to me he's effectively dissing all of the programming work of Linus, Alan and the thousands of other kernel hackers. "You're programming is pretty good as a stop-gap measure, but we're going to make a kernel eventually, so you should name your system after us."
Now, I understand that the GNU tools are very important and a remarkable technical achievement, but RMS is acting like a bully, and as far as I'm concerned that invalidates any moral crusade he's on to gain recognition for the FSF or GNU. If they want to make a "GNU Inside" sticker, good for them, I don't plan on putting it on anything until the GNU people, and especially Stallman, mature by leaps and bounds.
The way things are going is quite stupid. GNU was (and I guess is still) about choice and about the best technical choice. Instead of wasting their effort in this trivial subject (that will gain them nothing) they should try to integrate things into thair system.
...). This is real choice not having to force ppl into a all or nothing situation ...
Woulnd't it be much nicer if I had a properly componentized and integrated system such that I can plug in what ever pice I want without having to comply to any phylosify.
Imagine a system where you can choose any kernel you want (BSD,Linux,IRIX,BeOS, or even NT) use any shell you want (bash, commad.com, KDE or what ever) use any networking layer you want (TCP/IP, ATM
Husain
"for him to infringe on my freedom to call it anything I want irks me."
Thanks to the liberal, open-minded scheme that GNU utilities are distributed under you can call it _anything_you_like. You are not being prevented from calling it_anything_you_like. RMS is merely stating his viewpoint that more credit should be given to the GNU project. You are insisting that HE capitulates to what YOU want to call the system that you run every day. To stridently attack someone for stating their viewpoint, as you do in this post, belies your claim to love freedom. Or perhaps its just YOUR freedom that you care about?
Do you agree that there is a move afoot to submerge the "political" ideals of the FSF underneath a welter of new acronyms that are more "friendly" to business? Do you agree that there is a chance that the structure of the programming community could develop in very different ways depending on which ideals have hegemony?
I was particularly irritated by your post because the very things that you accuse RMS of are embodied in your own post. Further, it follows on from a particularly trite and irritating article that expresses conservative shibboleths: the idea that ANY debate over language is "political correctness" and that this is in itself a bad thing; the idea that one can label those that see the world in a different way as "political" and that they are therefore "extreme". All these merely add up to saying "stop disagreeing with me, shut up and let me win". RMS is caricatured frequently and freely whenever his views are discussed. It doesn't matter if any of these characterizations are based in fact, all that matters is the logical correctness or otherwise of the arguments. I put it to you that to have contributed such a huge chunk of the distributions that we use and to receive no overt recognition of this is insulting and demeaning to RMS and all of the FSF programmers and writers.
Anyway brother, live wild and free in the programming Utopia created for you by other people, but whatever you do don't lose sight of the fact that there is a history to it and that
there will be a future which depends on what you
believe.
The full quote:
-Nick
My name is Obi-Wan Kenobi. You killed my master. Prepare to die.
I'm not holding my breath here, but I think this is a pretty good compromise. In fact the GNU inside sticker could be sorta cool.
The thing that stick in my gut is that this is all such a waste of time. I'll be PC here and state that I am gratefull for all of the work that RMS has done, as well as the FSF. I'm a big emacs fan (well actually xemacs lateley) and I appreciate the work RMS has contibuted towards that software.
However....it seems so hypocritical on the part of RMS to make this an issue. If his goal is to promote free (like free speech not free beer) software then he should be thrilled by the fact that Linux gives him the opportunity to do so. Idealistically the name (should) means nothing. So what is the true goal here...promote free software or promote the awareness of RMS and the FSF.
Maybe RMS is not as idealistic as he wants to think he is.
So yeah...lets compromise and get on with it already.
Also, the point has been made many times that Linux would not be what it is today without GNU. However, I think it is safe to say that GNU would not be what it is today without Linux. Linux has given GNU a lot of vitality. Maybe Linux needs GNU more than GNU needs Linux, but this is nitpicking.
Anyway, "GNU Inside" sounds ok to me. It's not very innovative, so I guess the slogan fits.
Yes, I'm serious (for once). Someone else on this topic pointed out that copying the "Intel Inside" slogan might not be a great idea. It might seem unoriginal.
So what about, "GNU in Use" or "GNU Used Here"? Try them out loud. Seems pretty catchy and (shudder) marketable, IMHO.
Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.
RMS is making a mockery of the GPL by insisting that Linux distributions put GNU in the name. From the GPL:
0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed
under the terms of this General Public License. The "Program", below, refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program"
means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it,
either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another language.
Linus has met and championed these conditions. The Program, Linux, is licensed in the letter and spirit of the GPL. Now, if FSF wants to package and distribute Linux and call it GNU/Linux, that is their right, because Linus followed the rules. But if Red Hat or Suse or anyone else wants to package and distribute Boomshakalakalaka/Linux, that is their right also.
I want to know from RMS, "What will it take to satisfy you other than this silly name thing? Is it money you are after? Fame? Honoraria? What is it you want?" If he can/will answer that, then everyone who has benefitted from the fanatastic software produced by FSF should make an attempt to satisfy him and then we can get on with the real business of building an environment where source code is freely distributed.
That environment is far from guaranteed. With the suits smelling money, the GPL is sure to come under attack. And if there is a pile of petty bickering going on within the community, there won't be enough resistance to prevent them from corrupting the intentions of open source and/or free software.