The $20/month figure is a bit on the high side actually. Most of the people I knew were lucky to make $12/month.
I'm a computer science graduate. I teach at my university and "informally" lead the computer network team over there. I earn 369 CUPs, or about $16 USD/month. I survive, not on my wages, but because my parents own an extra room that they rent (after taxes, it earns about $300 USD/month). That's a pretty high ammount over here, but it is also very frustrating that at 26, a university professor's options are to live with his parents or go the illegal way.
How others survive? I really don't know. Rather, everyone knows. IIRC, Raul Castro said not long ago that he was aware that no one here could live with their wages alone. My $16 used to be depleted on commuting alone (though in the last few months, not any more: public transportation has improved a lot). But, somehow... I don't think that computers are that uncommon over here, and with this change, they will become more common. Let's hope the income from selling computers to the "rich" goes to the Joven Clubs, our "social computing" project.
(to the inevitable comments that may follow: I'm not planning to leave Cuba.)
I would say, both parts are true. Cuban bandwdith is severely limited, thus, it is obviuous that certain key areas are prioritized (oddly enough, universities aren't - we have a 1mbs for 10 thousand users at mine).
On the other hand, that doesn't explain why don't we have conectivity even within our countries (it is faster to download Debian from the internet that it is to download it from the cuban mirrors). There is even one law to address this issue, that has been largely ignored except on the part of giving monopoly-like powers to our phone company. And it even seem they find cheaper to use satellite to connect two places within the city, than to lay a couple hundred metters of fiber to the nearest hub.
With that, though, I'm willing to call (the ministry of informatics and communications, the phone company, whatever), ignorant rather than evil. I do accept that the reason for that is technical (that we are forbidden to hook to the fiber optics that go around my country). But, there is censorship. Over time, I've collected a set of domains that seem to be banned. No one never confirms it, and the banning works as if the remote server was not working, but routing the request through a proxy server, you find out that it is indeed working. And more recently, we got this other law, that was publicly mentioned by this guy, and forbids chats, formus and mailing lists.
So, we have everything. We have serious technical difficulties caused by the US (internet access). We have serious technical difficulties caused by who-knows-who (intranet access). And, we have censorship. I have high hopes that if the first one is solved, the rest will follow. However, for the sake of my country and our socialism... I do wish that the last two are solved first.
I'm a Cuban.
This happened more than a month ago.
And we are very happy that someone finally came to his senses about it.
What's new, though, is that [startin soon], they are going to be sold without operating systems... No more windows pre-installed. Or so I've heard. Now we only need tons of Ubuntu disks to give away at the sotre.
I couldn't agree more. After all this effort put into the OLPC project, it's really dissapointing to see them marching towards closedness.
I find it weird, though, that the OLPC website still seems to agree with the original vision. I can't understand that... They still say it right there on their website!
I believe they said Java would be GPL+classpath and that they were considering GPLv3. ZFS is, irrc, GPLv3. Linus doesn't want to upgrade to GPLv3, but you can't really blame that on Sun. It seems they learned from the CDDL. (Wow... I'm defending Sun. That's unexpected)
The issue is artistic control. If you edit and redistribute my movie, your putting out a redistributed work with my name on it. Suppose I think it's crap? Suppose other people think it's crap, and don't buy my movies anymore? Part of the purpose of copyright, in addition to giving people monetary rewards for their work, is for people to control their artistic reputation.
You have a point there, but, if I want the edited movie for myself, why shouldn't I edit it? And why shouldn't I pay someone to edit it for me? If that company, instead of cutting pieces out of the move, were to provide a dvd player + a service to tell that dvd player what to skip, would that service also be illegal? Would you consider it wrong, given that the net result is the same (with more work for the client)?
I would assume that the editing company made clear that those weren't the originals. If they didn't, then I fully agree with you. (A step further - it would be ideal that they sent out both versions, but that would seem even more attractive to the lawyers).
Ummm... the fact that Clean/Family flix - who held no rights in the movies they were redistributing - was redistributing copyrighted material for money in direct violation of the copyright holders' rights?
If you find the content morally objectionable, how is it more moral to buy an edited version from someone who has no right to sell it? It seems to me that the best thing you can do is vote with your wallet and not buy it.
Why would it not be moral to buy the edited version? Assuming the seller actually paid for it, of course. The author is certainly getting his money (hence your suggestion to 'vote with your wallet'), and the reseller is just charging for the service his clients. If they could do it themselves (buy the move, edit it, burn it), why is it not moral to pay someone else to do it instead?
It may be illegal. That's different. Illegal, but not wrong. The seller is not profiting from the author's work - he is profiting for his own work, and paying the authors for theirs.
If you copy bsd code and stick the gpl on it it's still wrong. If you don't like the bsd license that's on the code, write your own driver from scratch and stop swiping someone else's code because you're too lazy.
But, if instead of sticking the GPL, you stick an EULA, does it stops being wrong? I would likely refuse to make improvements to bsd code in a way that is unusable to the original authors, but that is my own decision on my own ethical grounds... It's just weird to see that the same people who claim that BSD is ethically superior because it lets you do that, also defend the position that it is unethical to do that.
They clean them up and implant them in the next patient. That's what they did when my mother died. Do you really believe they're just going to throw out almost $10,000 of hardware that's almost brand new?
I thought you might say that. So, then, who can reinstall it? (the software, not the device itself). The manufacturer, the hospital? And how it is ensured that only they can? And who buys it? I guess that your mother didn't (sorry about it, btw), so that would leave the hospital as the owner and the one who must have the installation instructions. (And at this point, it is even less 'personal'). What kind of reinstallation is required, and why? (reconfigure some parameters? That shouldn't require a full reinstall) And there is always the option of giving some kind of warning if the signature doesn't match, instea of disallowing reinstallation (though that may not be legal)
The FAQ is not the license - its just an interpretation of the license
Indeed, but so is this thread. I'm not a lawyer, even if I were, I do not know about US law. But I know that there were several lawyers involved in the drafting process, and not only FSF/SFLC lawyers, also from other organizations (Sun, IBM,...). I believe their interpretation is more accurate (and more likely to hold) than my own, and in fact, I believe that interpretation follows from the text of the licence (I arrived to it before reading the faq - you pointed me in that direction)
I would like to further investigate this particular matter. I still belive that its not forbidden by the licence, but there is one place where I can find out: licensing@gnu.org, or even rms@gnu.org (is amazing that he actually replies to emails, even in spanish). So, for completeness sake, could you provide me with links about the restrictions placed on medical devices? I'm not from the US, so you'll understand if I'm less than familiar with US law.
(P.S: It could happen that I'm wrong and they excluded them on purpose, with specific reasons. Perhaps those laws are unfair. After all, GPLv1/2/3 were created with the goal of making copyright a burden for those who want to use it to restrict. And it will certainly be the goal if a law is passed that no user-installable device can receive TV signals - i.e, the broadcast flag)
Well, you'd have to admit that pacemakers fulfill the definition of a tangible device normally used for personal purposes, for a significant portion of the population.
Are they re-installable? That's a scary thought (more than your windows suggestion). But if they are not re-installable, they fall outside of the tivoization clause.
Even if they didn't, I would argue the 'personal purposes': I would not call controlling your heartbeat a 'personal' thing, but I realize that's a matter of interpretation and would be a problem. And, given that they would only be required to give the keys to the user of the device (and it may be in his best interest to destroy them ASAP), he can still be sure that only the manufacturer (and himself) can alter it.
Still, the drafting process was created to address exactly this kind of concerns. The "peace of mind" you speak of is mentioned in the faq (granted, for non-personal devices, but mentioned nonetheless).
Please elaborate upon how "you must make source available" is the same as "you may not distribute this with devices with property X".
Well, the licence doesn't say that you cannot distribute software with devices with property X. It says that you must provide installation instructions. So, it is not different from requiring the source code. In fact, GPLv2 already mentions "installation scripts" as part of the definition of source code!
for example, use in running medical devices where you absolutely want to prohibit anyone from changing the binaries; because of provisions for distributing keys, any device containing GPLv3 software is no longer certifiable.
Oh, so that's why those devices were specifically excluded? That was my only disappointment (so far) with GPLv3: that some hardware vendors were allowed to lock down our devices. Thank's for explaining why that exception is useful (though I don't think is the best way to do it). Relevant sections:
A User Product is either (1) a consumer product, which means any tangible personal property which is normally used for personal, family, or household purposes, or (2) anything designed or sold for incorporation into a dwelling.
[...]
If you convey an object code work under this section in, or with, or specifically for use in, a User Product [...]
And then, this bit about non-installable devices (like, I would guess, some medical devices):
But this requirement does not apply if neither you nor any third party retains the ability to install modified object code on the User Product (for example, the work has been installed in ROM).
So I have to wonder... did you really read the licence?
Huh? That sentence doesn't seem to make sense. What does whether you distribute source have to do with why you are distributing at all?
From GPLv2:
For an executable work, complete source
code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any
associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to
control compilation and installation of the executable.
GPLv3 only adds the condition that installation instructions must be provided, if necessary.
GPLv3 adds new restrictions on distribution which are based on the intent of that distribution, "you may not use this software for X". That is not Free. The specific nature or intent of those restrictions ("may not be used in DRMed devices") is completely irrelevant.
But it can be used on those DRM devices! It could make the DRM quite pointless... but I have no problem with that. I see you have trouble with the wording of "use in a User Product" (don't have the original at hand, forgive me if I'm not textual). And I share one concern (what could a judge interpret from that?). But, if it is mentioned explicitly, instead of "you must always provide installation instructions", it is to exclude those fields where installation instructions are always too obvious (general purpose unrestricted PCs), and the corporate equipment they excluded-I-don't-know-why. That is, in fact, one thing I disagree with.
I wonder... if the licence just said: "you must always provide installation instructions" (just as GPLv2 includes the scripts to control the build and installation process -after reading this, I fail to see why TiVo isn't already violating GPLv2, but ianal and I'll trust Moglen on this), would you agree with it?
The intent of the licence is, indeed, to restrict restrictions. But so is GPLv2 - it only restricts you if you intend to restrict others (by not giving the source, or build or installation components). I do wonder why did they didn't restrict everyone who wishes to restrict (by making it not installable), but in any case, that makes the licence more free, not less.
If you convey an object code work under this section in, or with, or specifically for use in, a User Product, and the conveying occurs as part of a transaction in which the right of possession and use of the User Product is transferred to the recipient in perpetuity or for a fixed term (regardless of how the transaction is characterized), the Corresponding Source conveyed under this section must be accompanied by the Installation Information. But this requirement does not apply if neither you nor any third party retains the ability to install modified object code on the User Product (for example, the work has been installed in ROM).
Yes, if you distribute the code with/for a device (that can be reinstalled), you must provide installation information. Obviously, if you don't distribute the code with or for a device, you don't have to provide this information for every conceivable device someone might wish. Are you sure it is not free? How is it different from...
What you may do is dependent on why you are doing it. That's not Free.
... GPLv2, that already does this? (you can't distribute the object code unless you also give the sources under the same license... what you may do is dependent on why you are doing it: if you do not wish to comply then you cannot redistribute the code)
I understand (not accept) the argument that GPLv2 is not free because it restricts you based on your [manifested] intent of imposing further restrictions on others. I can also understand that you believe that your TiVo device is TiVo's property, like someone suggested (though I fail to see why you would agree and even support that situation). What I cannot possibly understand is why someone might think that GPLv2 is free, but GPLv3 isn't because it restricts those who want to restrict you.
Of course, if you are one who restricts other's freedom, I can see why you feel restricted... but then, you would deserve no pitty.
(note: the last two paragraphs are not acusations nor assumptions. If you belive GPLv2 is not free, or if you believe that you don't own the hardware you buy, or if you want to restrict others, then your position would make sense to me. Otherwise... it doesn't)
I don't agree with this interpretation, but it is the one I think he most likely subscribes to.
Nice interpretation... that one doesn't own the things one buys. Indeed, it explains his position, though I cannot understand why anyone would defend not to own the products she buys. With more reason I agree, then, with GPLv3.
(The "not truly Free" is because there are now restrictions on what you can do with the software, not just how you distribute it.)
People keep saying that... I wonder, have you actually read GPLv3? Can you point where exactly GPLv3 restricts "what can you do with the software, not just how you distribute it"?. The only restriction I manage to find is the clause to provide 'installation information' whenever you distribute the software. And of course, if you don't distribute the software at all, then the licence explicitly says you can do whatever you want with it. How is that non-free? (And where did you get the idea that GPLv3 restricts "what can you do with the software, not just how you distribute it"?)
TiVo, however, runs their software on a DRM'ed box.
Erm... no. The problem is not TiVo running their software in their DRM'ed boxes... The problem is TiVo forcing users to run "our" code in DRM'ed boxes. TiVo (even with GPLv3) is still free to run GNU/Linux in anything they wish. If they want to run the software in DRM'ed boxes, sure, they can do that. What they can't do (with GPLv3) is distribute a copy of that software after they break my hardware on purpose so that I cannot use the freedoms granted by GPLv2.
And yes... That TiVo I have back there, is my hardware, not theirs.
I don't understand that (this is an honest assertion, not a troll).
Why you don't just s/medical insurance/healthcare tax/? You already pay for it... it shouldn't bother you to s/insurance company profit/other people health/.
I guess it isn't that simple, and that maybe even using those profits to cover other's health may not be enough... but do you really prefer to pay someone's profit, rather than paying a bit more for someone's health or life?
However, it's more realistic that nVidia and ATI have their own proprietary IP and patents that could severely hurt their business if competitors got their hands on them. For example, how do you think it's possible for nVidia and ATI to get performance increases from several-year-old GPUs with nothing more than a driver update? Oh, wait, conspiracy theory: obviously nVidia and ATI intentionally hinder the performance of their GPUs so that they can slowly trickle out driver updates that will add incremental performance increases. For free. Because that makes sense.
Well, it makes more sense than the alternative. After all, if they are so good hearted that only think on the benefit of their customers (updating the drivers without a cost and all that), why don't they allow them to fix the drivers in the first place? I'm currently stuck with an old nvidia, too old to hope receiving support from them (legacy drivers only), and a recent ATI, so recent that even the official drivers won't work. It's hard to "thank" them for allowing me to be in this situation.
I can't find where in my post I mentioned that I am a kernel developer or that my software is included on TiVo in any way. I also didn't notice where in yours you mentioned that you were a TiVo developer. For that matter, I can't find any reference to the name "GNU" or "RMS" or even "Linux". Are you sure you are replying to the right post?
I couldn't agree more with your post.
I see you mentioned Debian. I too run GNU/Linux, and when chosing a distro, one of the things that made me chose Debian was the first paragraph of the answer for the first question on the FAQ
To the question: "What is Debian?" their answer is:
The Debian Project is an association of individuals who have made common cause to create a free operating system. This operating system that we have created is called Debian GNU/Linux, or simply Debian for short.
Thus, for short, I use Debian in my speech, but Debian GNU/Linux in my writings when I describe my OS of choice. It is indeed an acknowledgement worth making.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm a computer science graduate. I teach at my university and "informally" lead the computer network team over there. I earn 369 CUPs, or about $16 USD/month. I survive, not on my wages, but because my parents own an extra room that they rent (after taxes, it earns about $300 USD/month). That's a pretty high ammount over here, but it is also very frustrating that at 26, a university professor's options are to live with his parents or go the illegal way.
How others survive? I really don't know. Rather, everyone knows. IIRC, Raul Castro said not long ago that he was aware that no one here could live with their wages alone. My $16 used to be depleted on commuting alone (though in the last few months, not any more: public transportation has improved a lot). But, somehow... I don't think that computers are that uncommon over here, and with this change, they will become more common. Let's hope the income from selling computers to the "rich" goes to the Joven Clubs, our "social computing" project.
(to the inevitable comments that may follow: I'm not planning to leave Cuba.)
I would say, both parts are true. Cuban bandwdith is severely limited, thus, it is obviuous that certain key areas are prioritized (oddly enough, universities aren't - we have a 1mbs for 10 thousand users at mine).
On the other hand, that doesn't explain why don't we have conectivity even within our countries (it is faster to download Debian from the internet that it is to download it from the cuban mirrors). There is even one law to address this issue, that has been largely ignored except on the part of giving monopoly-like powers to our phone company. And it even seem they find cheaper to use satellite to connect two places within the city, than to lay a couple hundred metters of fiber to the nearest hub.
With that, though, I'm willing to call (the ministry of informatics and communications, the phone company, whatever), ignorant rather than evil. I do accept that the reason for that is technical (that we are forbidden to hook to the fiber optics that go around my country). But, there is censorship. Over time, I've collected a set of domains that seem to be banned. No one never confirms it, and the banning works as if the remote server was not working, but routing the request through a proxy server, you find out that it is indeed working. And more recently, we got this other law, that was publicly mentioned by this guy, and forbids chats, formus and mailing lists.
So, we have everything. We have serious technical difficulties caused by the US (internet access). We have serious technical difficulties caused by who-knows-who (intranet access). And, we have censorship. I have high hopes that if the first one is solved, the rest will follow. However, for the sake of my country and our socialism... I do wish that the last two are solved first.
Gah.
s/startin/starting
s/sotre/store
If I only had an edit button...What's new, though, is that [startin soon], they are going to be sold without operating systems... No more windows pre-installed. Or so I've heard. Now we only need tons of Ubuntu disks to give away at the sotre.
I couldn't agree more. After all this effort put into the OLPC project, it's really dissapointing to see them marching towards closedness.
I find it weird, though, that the OLPC website still seems to agree with the original vision. I can't understand that... They still say it right there on their website!
I believe they said Java would be GPL+classpath and that they were considering GPLv3. ZFS is, irrc, GPLv3. Linus doesn't want to upgrade to GPLv3, but you can't really blame that on Sun. It seems they learned from the CDDL. (Wow... I'm defending Sun. That's unexpected)
You have a point there, but, if I want the edited movie for myself, why shouldn't I edit it? And why shouldn't I pay someone to edit it for me?
If that company, instead of cutting pieces out of the move, were to provide a dvd player + a service to tell that dvd player what to skip, would that service also be illegal? Would you consider it wrong, given that the net result is the same (with more work for the client)?
I would assume that the editing company made clear that those weren't the originals. If they didn't, then I fully agree with you. (A step further - it would be ideal that they sent out both versions, but that would seem even more attractive to the lawyers).
Why would it not be moral to buy the edited version? Assuming the seller actually paid for it, of course. The author is certainly getting his money (hence your suggestion to 'vote with your wallet'), and the reseller is just charging for the service his clients. If they could do it themselves (buy the move, edit it, burn it), why is it not moral to pay someone else to do it instead?
It may be illegal. That's different. Illegal, but not wrong. The seller is not profiting from the author's work - he is profiting for his own work, and paying the authors for theirs.
Hmm.
If he knows he is getting screwed beforehand, he can't complain for getting screwed.
However, if he doesn't know that he is getting screwed, he can't complain because he is an ignorant.
Are you sure that the best way to not get screwed is not complaining when you get screwed?
I disagree with your view...
Indeed, but so is this thread. I'm not a lawyer, even if I were, I do not know about US law. But I know that there were several lawyers involved in the drafting process, and not only FSF/SFLC lawyers, also from other organizations (Sun, IBM, ...). I believe their interpretation is more accurate (and more likely to hold) than my own, and in fact, I believe that interpretation follows from the text of the licence (I arrived to it before reading the faq - you pointed me in that direction)
I would like to further investigate this particular matter. I still belive that its not forbidden by the licence, but there is one place where I can find out: licensing@gnu.org, or even rms@gnu.org (is amazing that he actually replies to emails, even in spanish). So, for completeness sake, could you provide me with links about the restrictions placed on medical devices? I'm not from the US, so you'll understand if I'm less than familiar with US law.
(P.S: It could happen that I'm wrong and they excluded them on purpose, with specific reasons. Perhaps those laws are unfair. After all, GPLv1/2/3 were created with the goal of making copyright a burden for those who want to use it to restrict. And it will certainly be the goal if a law is passed that no user-installable device can receive TV signals - i.e, the broadcast flag)Are they re-installable? That's a scary thought (more than your windows suggestion). But if they are not re-installable, they fall outside of the tivoization clause.
Even if they didn't, I would argue the 'personal purposes': I would not call controlling your heartbeat a 'personal' thing, but I realize that's a matter of interpretation and would be a problem. And, given that they would only be required to give the keys to the user of the device (and it may be in his best interest to destroy them ASAP), he can still be sure that only the manufacturer (and himself) can alter it.
Still, the drafting process was created to address exactly this kind of concerns. The "peace of mind" you speak of is mentioned in the faq (granted, for non-personal devices, but mentioned nonetheless).
But it can be used on those DRM devices! It could make the DRM quite pointless... but I have no problem with that. I see you have trouble with the wording of "use in a User Product" (don't have the original at hand, forgive me if I'm not textual). And I share one concern (what could a judge interpret from that?). But, if it is mentioned explicitly, instead of "you must always provide installation instructions", it is to exclude those fields where installation instructions are always too obvious (general purpose unrestricted PCs), and the corporate equipment they excluded-I-don't-know-why. That is, in fact, one thing I disagree with.
I wonder... if the licence just said: "you must always provide installation instructions" (just as GPLv2 includes the scripts to control the build and installation process -after reading this, I fail to see why TiVo isn't already violating GPLv2, but ianal and I'll trust Moglen on this), would you agree with it? The intent of the licence is, indeed, to restrict restrictions. But so is GPLv2 - it only restricts you if you intend to restrict others (by not giving the source, or build or installation components). I do wonder why did they didn't restrict everyone who wishes to restrict (by making it not installable), but in any case, that makes the licence more free, not less.
... GPLv2, that already does this? (you can't distribute the object code unless you also give the sources under the same license... what you may do is dependent on why you are doing it: if you do not wish to comply then you cannot redistribute the code)
I understand (not accept) the argument that GPLv2 is not free because it restricts you based on your [manifested] intent of imposing further restrictions on others. I can also understand that you believe that your TiVo device is TiVo's property, like someone suggested (though I fail to see why you would agree and even support that situation). What I cannot possibly understand is why someone might think that GPLv2 is free, but GPLv3 isn't because it restricts those who want to restrict you.
Of course, if you are one who restricts other's freedom, I can see why you feel restricted... but then, you would deserve no pitty.
(note: the last two paragraphs are not acusations nor assumptions. If you belive GPLv2 is not free, or if you believe that you don't own the hardware you buy, or if you want to restrict others, then your position would make sense to me. Otherwise... it doesn't)Nice interpretation... that one doesn't own the things one buys. Indeed, it explains his position, though I cannot understand why anyone would defend not to own the products she buys. With more reason I agree, then, with GPLv3.
Thanks!People keep saying that... I wonder, have you actually read GPLv3? Can you point where exactly GPLv3 restricts "what can you do with the software, not just how you distribute it"?. The only restriction I manage to find is the clause to provide 'installation information' whenever you distribute the software. And of course, if you don't distribute the software at all, then the licence explicitly says you can do whatever you want with it. How is that non-free? (And where did you get the idea that GPLv3 restricts "what can you do with the software, not just how you distribute it"?)
I'm curious...Erm... no. The problem is not TiVo running their software in their DRM'ed boxes... The problem is TiVo forcing users to run "our" code in DRM'ed boxes. TiVo (even with GPLv3) is still free to run GNU/Linux in anything they wish. If they want to run the software in DRM'ed boxes, sure, they can do that. What they can't do (with GPLv3) is distribute a copy of that software after they break my hardware on purpose so that I cannot use the freedoms granted by GPLv2.
And yes... That TiVo I have back there, is my hardware, not theirs.
I don't understand that (this is an honest assertion, not a troll).
Why you don't just s/medical insurance/healthcare tax/? You already pay for it... it shouldn't bother you to s/insurance company profit/other people health/.
I guess it isn't that simple, and that maybe even using those profits to cover other's health may not be enough... but do you really prefer to pay someone's profit, rather than paying a bit more for someone's health or life?
Well, it makes more sense than the alternative. After all, if they are so good hearted that only think on the benefit of their customers (updating the drivers without a cost and all that), why don't they allow them to fix the drivers in the first place? I'm currently stuck with an old nvidia, too old to hope receiving support from them (legacy drivers only), and a recent ATI, so recent that even the official drivers won't work. It's hard to "thank" them for allowing me to be in this situation.
I can't find where in my post I mentioned that I am a kernel developer or that my software is included on TiVo in any way. I also didn't notice where in yours you mentioned that you were a TiVo developer. For that matter, I can't find any reference to the name "GNU" or "RMS" or even "Linux". Are you sure you are replying to the right post?
I see you mentioned Debian. I too run GNU/Linux, and when chosing a distro, one of the things that made me chose Debian was the first paragraph of the answer for the first question on the FAQ
To the question: "What is Debian?" their answer is:
Thus, for short, I use Debian in my speech, but Debian GNU/Linux in my writings when I describe my OS of choice. It is indeed an acknowledgement worth making.