Why does GNU exist in the shadow of Linux?
Baby Peanut
On it is this quote: "Linux is a free Unix-type operating system
originally created by Linus Torvalds with the assistance of developers
around the world."
It's A REAL TRUE FACT! Back in 1984 Linus travled to Boston and
hypnotized RMS into creating the GNU Project. After seven years Linus
went into his second phase where he wrote the Linux kernel and
attached GNU to it to make a complete system. RMS has no recollection
of this due to post-hypnotic suggestion.
But the saddest part of this revisionist history is that RMS is really
convinced that Linus did not publicize Linux and there is a conspiracy
by the distributors of the Linux Operating System against the GNU
project:
But don't you think that Linus had better communication skills
when it came to presenting information for non-programmers,
specifically end users?
RMS> Not that I know of. As far as I know, he generally only tries to
RMS> talk to programmers. He is not the one who publicized "Linux".
RMS> That was done by others--especially by companies.
RMS> That these companies called the system "Linux" was partly just
RMS> bad luck for us--they magnified the initial mistake. However, in
RMS> some cases it derives from their dislike for our idealism.
RMS> Linus's ideas don't rock any ethical boats; ours do. Especially
RMS> once they started including lots of non-free software, it was in
RMS> their interest to hide us from the public.
Bruce Scott TOK
Baby Peanut <baby_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>But the saddest part of this revisionist history is that RMS is really
>convinced that Linus did not publicize Linux and there is a conspiracy
>by the distributors of the Linux Operating System against the GNU
>project:
>
> But don't you think that Linus had better communication skills
> when it came to presenting information for non-programmers,
> specifically end users?
>
>RMS> Not that I know of. As far as I know, he generally only tries to
>RMS> talk to programmers. He is not the one who publicized "Linux".
>RMS> That was done by others--especially by companies.
>
>RMS> That these companies called the system "Linux" was partly just
>RMS> bad luck for us--they magnified the initial mistake. However, in
>RMS> some cases it derives from their dislike for our idealism.
>RMS> Linus's ideas don't rock any ethical boats; ours do. Especially
>RMS> once they started including lots of non-free software, it was in
>RMS> their interest to hide us from the public.
RMS is totally correct, of course...
--
cu,
Bruce
drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
Steve
FREE AS IN FREEDOM ( the RMS and GNU story )
and
JUST FOR FURN ( the Linus Torvalds and Linux story )
We ( and I, I love, use their software ) owe both of these men a lot
of gratitude.
I also believe that the FSF, Open Source would not be where it is
today without both of these men and not just for their technical
contributions. Both men have dominant aspects of their personality
that complements the other and that has helped open source.
Linus Torvald's wrote the kernal for the os known as "linux". The
Free Software Foundation, GNU, a whole big, big group of programmers
made everything else for the OS.
Linus Torvald's didn't want and did not christen the OS "linux".
He does not have a confrontational personality ( judging from his book
), but there are times in life where you have to step up to the plate
and I don't think he has done enough about the nomenclature.
I'm not saying he should go do anything active, just use the influence
he has.
For example in public appearances he could use the term "GNU OS" when
speaking.
Journalists will ask him about it and as "linux" becomes more popular
those explanations will spread.
Just my opinion.
No disrespect to Linus.
From reading his book I have a LOT of respect for him, I am very
greatful for his contributions, I *use* them, and I think if we knew
each other in real life we would probably be good friends.
Steve
Rick
> I recently read
>
> FREE AS IN FREEDOM ( the RMS and GNU story )
>
> and
>
> JUST FOR FURN ( the Linus Torvalds and Linux story )
>
>
> We ( and I, I love, use their software ) owe both of these men a lot of
> gratitude.
> I also believe that the FSF, Open Source would not be where it is today
> without both of these men and not just for their technical
> contributions. Both men have dominant aspects of their personality that
> complements the other and that has helped open source.
>
> Linus Torvald's wrote the kernal for the os known as "linux". The Free
> Software Foundation, GNU, a whole big, big group of programmers made
> everything else for the OS.
The FSF made -everything else-? That will be suprising to the KDE team,
the Open Office team, the abiword developers, the xmms developers, the
guys that maintain tkscan... and all ther rest of the people that aren't
FSF and contributed apps and "OS parts". Is GNU important? Yes. Did they
do everything except the kernel? No.
>
> Linus Torvald's didn't want and did not christen the OS "linux".
>
> He does not have a confrontational personality ( judging from his book
> ), but there are times in life where you have to step up to the plate
> and I don't think he has done enough about the nomenclature.
>
> I'm not saying he should go do anything active, just use the influence
> he has.
>
> For example in public appearances he could use the term "GNU OS" when
> speaking.
Why? IIRC, GNU has a HURD. They could publish an OS and distribution based
on HURD and call it anything they want.
>
> Journalists will ask him about it and as "linux" becomes more popular
> those explanations will spread.
>
> Just my opinion.
>
> No disrespect to Linus.
>
> From reading his book I have a LOT of respect for him, I am very
> greatful for his contributions, I *use* them, and I think if we knew
> each other in real life we would probably be good friends.
>
> Steve
--
Rick
Steve
> The FSF made -everything else-? That will be suprising to the KDE team,
> the Open Office team, the abiword developers, the xmms developers, the
> guys that maintain tkscan... and all ther rest of the people that aren't
> FSF and contributed apps and "OS parts". Is GNU important? Yes. Did they
> do everything except the kernel? No.
I meant that the FSF/GNU made it possible to hook up the linux
terminal and get a functioning operating system when Linus built the
kernal.
The parts were there waiting for him. Without GNU he would have had
just a kernal. He would have had to build the rest. He might have
even been delayed or put off building the kernal itself if it wasn't
for the existence of the GNU gcc compiler.
Additionally, these other orgs were/are in a similar position to Linus
when he built his kernal. That would not have been able to make their
contributions witout the technical, legal, and organizational
contributions the FSF/GNU had established beforehand.
As for the other software/orgs you mention, more power to the original
spirit of my argument. Linus didn't build any of those things which
many new users get as default in their distro and they call "Linux".
Linus __did not__ ask to have credit falsely assigned to him, but I
think he has an obligation to at least take the passive approach and
make a quick, short point out of this issue when it comes up.
> Why?
I can't really answer that. Its a basic right from wrong deal your
parents give to you. You don't take credit, ...passively accept it,
or let others mistakenly believe you did something when you did not.
> IIRC, GNU has a HURD. They could publish an OS and distribution based
> on HURD and call it anything they want.
I'd like to see that.
Jay Maynard
>I meant that the FSF/GNU made it possible to hook up the linux
>terminal and get a functioning operating system when Linus built the
>kernal.
Actually, there was at least one other body of code out there that Linus
could have used: the BSD codebase. Why he chose the GNU codebase is
something I've never quite understood, as it's doomed Linux to perpetual
code bloat.
>The parts were there waiting for him. Without GNU he would have had
>just a kernal. He would have had to build the rest. He might have
>even been delayed or put off building the kernal itself if it wasn't
>for the existence of the GNU gcc compiler.
Wrong. Again, he could as easily have selected BSD's tools.
>As for the other software/orgs you mention, more power to the original
>spirit of my argument. Linus didn't build any of those things which
>many new users get as default in their distro and they call "Linux".
Wrong. Linus didn't build them...but, by your argument, they should be
mentioned in the system name, too.
>Linus __did not__ ask to have credit falsely assigned to him, but I
>think he has an obligation to at least take the passive approach and
>make a quick, short point out of this issue when it comes up.
He did. "The midwife doesn't get to name the baby." -- Linus Torvalds
>> IIRC, GNU has a HURD. They could publish an OS and distribution based
>> on HURD and call it anything they want.
>I'd like to see that.
So would a lot of other people. We've been waiting 18 years.
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On 23 Aug 2002 06:09:23 -0700,
Steve <steves...@yahoo.com> wrote:
He has, repeatedly. He often states that even in the Kernel, (now) most
of the code wasn't written by him.
The impact of the GNU tools can't be ignored, it's huge, but GNU,
despite spending a lot of time on it, hasn't come up with an OS yet that
anyone short of the real die hard hackers can install. HURD has promise,
maybe it's the next great thing, but it's not at the state where it's
useable enough to replace Linux or *BSD.
Stallman is right to expect kudos for the GNU tools, and he gets it, he
doesn't get to decide what I call Linux, or anything else for that
matter.
>
>> IIRC, GNU has a HURD. They could publish an OS and distribution based
>> on HURD and call it anything they want.
>
> I'd like to see that.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE9ZkG7d90bcYOAWPYRAk0LAJ9fdMLUuUHB87IVvoNdDicW7xp63gCg1cbw
0DiJYu6lOq7Y1X24h4qQzQo=
=L/Es
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, from watches to supercomputers, for grandmas and geeks.
Isaac
wrote:
> On 23 Aug 2002 06:09:23 -0700, Steve <steves...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>I meant that the FSF/GNU made it possible to hook up the linux
>>terminal and get a functioning operating system when Linus built the
>>kernal.
>
> Actually, there was at least one other body of code out there that Linus
> could have used: the BSD codebase. Why he chose the GNU codebase is
> something I've never quite understood, as it's doomed Linux to perpetual
> code bloat.
At the time Linux was being written wasn't there a cloud of legal problems
hanging over the BSD code base?
Isaac
John Hasler
> IIRC, GNU has a HURD. They could publish an OS and distribution based on
> HURD and call it anything they want.
<http://www.debian.org/ports/hurd/>
--
John Hasler
jo...@dhh.gt.org (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
Stuart Fox
> Rick <rha...@excite.com> wrote
>
> The parts were there waiting for him. Without GNU he would have had
> just a kernal. He would have had to build the rest. He might have
> even been delayed or put off building the kernal itself if it wasn't
> for the existence of the GNU gcc compiler.
Why? Wouldn't he have just found another compiler?
John Hasler
> Wouldn't he have just found another compiler?
Name one.
Jay Maynard
>Stuart Fox writes:
>> Wouldn't he have just found another compiler?
>Name one.
IIRC, BSD at the time was using a Berkeley-developed compiler.
Christopher Browne
> Stuart Fox writes:
>> Wouldn't he have just found another compiler?
>
> Name one.
- At that time, I believe the BSD folks had a pcc-derived compiler that
could have been used. Perhaps only for IA-32, but that's all that
Linux was ever supposed to support, when Linus started.
- lcc was under way, if not completely there yet. (The book on it is
dated 1995.)
- And TENDRA was quite active. You can do an "apt-get install tendra"
and get what was available in about 1996.
- Linux was being hosted atop Minix, with the result that anyone
running Linux had to have the Amsterdam Compiler Toolkit around.
That makes _four_ options, not merely one. Most have fallen by the
wayside because a lot of effort went into GCC, though some corporate
politics should probably also be considered. (Microsoft was in the
process of buying up researchers at the time; the lcc folks moved to
MSFT...)
There _was_ a historical inevitability of there being a "popular Unix
clone," in much the same way that the war reparations of WWI made
conflict in Europe in the 1940s pretty inevitable.
- If there hadn't have been the legal cloud surrounding BSD for a
while, we might all be using BSD, not Linux.
- If the corporate politics had not surrounded CMU and the Mach
Project, Hurd might conceivably have gotten somewhere instead of
stalling for several years while they waited for the Mach kernel to
become available.
- If GCC development had stalled earlier, and if British research
politics not gotten nasty, we might all be using TENDRA instead of
GCC.
We'd more than likely be running GNU Emacs, X11R6, often using Apache,
Perl, and Python, but it would be _eminently_ easy for a lot of the
other names to be quite different. (One probably _unfortunate_ thing:
if Fresco had been chosen over Motif, it's likely that Motif, KDE and
GNOME would never have happened, which on balance seems a positive
contribution.)
My favorite would-be headline is: "Archduke Ferdinand Found Alive!
World War I a Mistake!" _Reality_ is that the assasination was a
pretext for European countries that _wanted_ a war to hold a war. It
would be a mistake to consider one assasination to have been the true
cause of everything. In WWII, the war didn't solely happen because of
the presence of one guy with a funny mustache; the causes for conflict
were deep, and it was pretty inevitable that there was going to be
trouble.
If Linux hadn't been in the right place at the right time, one of the
other projects would have gotten the nod instead. And the same is
true of GCC.
--
(reverse (concatenate 'string "gro.mca@" "enworbbc"))
http://cbbrowne.com/info/spreadsheets.html
Rules of the Evil Overlord #208. "Members of my Legion of Terror will
attend seminars on Sensitivity Training. It's good public relations
for them to be kind and courteous to the general population when not
actively engaged in sowing chaos and destruction."
<http://www.eviloverlord.com/>
Roberto Alsina
>
> > The FSF made -everything else-? That will be suprising to the KDE team,
> > the Open Office team, the abiword developers, the xmms developers, the
> > guys that maintain tkscan... and all ther rest of the people that aren't
> > FSF and contributed apps and "OS parts". Is GNU important? Yes. Did they
> > do everything except the kernel? No.
>
> I meant that the FSF/GNU made it possible to hook up the linux
> terminal and get a functioning operating system when Linus built the
> kernal.
You say that as if it was the only choice available.
The whole BSD userland is not from the FSF, and just as functional.
The only piece of software provided by the FSF that has no good free
replacement is gcc.
But gcc has not been developed by the FSF for years, AFAIK.
> The parts were there waiting for him. Without GNU he would have had
> just a kernal.
And X, and TeX, and the BSD userland. He would have lacked a compiler,
though. So he would probably have had to cross-compile, or maybe lcc
would have gained more traction.
--
Roberto Alsina
Stefaan A Eeckels
> On 23 Aug 2002 06:09:23 -0700, Steve <steves...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >I meant that the FSF/GNU made it possible to hook up the linux
> >terminal and get a functioning operating system when Linus built the
> >kernal.
>
> Actually, there was at least one other body of code out there that Linus
> could have used: the BSD codebase. Why he chose the GNU codebase is
> something I've never quite understood, as it's doomed Linux to perpetual
> code bloat.
Linux the kernel doesn't use the GNU codebase. It uses the
GNU tools, and they do not affect the kernel at all.
Linus the programmer chose the GPL, and has defended that
choice eloquently, proving he knew full well what it
entailed.
> >The parts were there waiting for him. Without GNU he would have had
> >just a kernal. He would have had to build the rest. He might have
> >even been delayed or put off building the kernal itself if it wasn't
> >for the existence of the GNU gcc compiler.
>
> Wrong. Again, he could as easily have selected BSD's tools.
Last time I checked, the BSDs used gcc. When Linus started
coding somewhere around 1991, gcc was the only decent free
'C' compiler.
--
Stefaan
--
The moral fabric of society unravels if there is no trust. With trust,
you gain respect, loyalty, and common purpose. Without trust, you need
detailed orders to run things. All centralized command and control
systems are based on mistrust. The way to maintain moral authority is
by deed, not word alone. -- Col. John Boyd (1993)
Edward Rosten
> >The parts were there waiting for him. Without GNU he would have had
> >just a kernal. He would have had to build the rest. He might have
> >even been delayed or put off building the kernal itself if it wasn't
> >for the existence of the GNU gcc compiler.
>
> Wrong. Again, he could as easily have selected BSD's tools.
Why did the create linux for the specific purpose of having a free
UNIX clone on which the GNU tools could be run (the original stated
purpose of Linux, IIRC).
-Ed
Rex Ballard
> Look at this page: http://www.linux.org/
>
> On it is this quote: "Linux is a free Unix-type operating system
> originally created by Linus Torvalds with the assistance of
> developers around the world."
This is technically true. Linus created the original 10,000 line
kernel which became the framework of the Linux operating sysetm.
Ironically, Linus originally posted it as his contribution to the
HURD project. Richard Stallman wanted to create a kernel that
would be similar to UNIX, but would be entirely licensed under the
GNU Public License.
Unfortunately, Richard Stallman was going to be hard to sell to the
"suits" of most corporations. One of the Hurd promoters, I'm not
sure, which, suggested that this new kernel be called Linux, which
was "Linux Is Not UniX". It was a play on Minux. The allusion
back to Linus was just icing on the cake.
> It's A REAL TRUE FACT! Back in 1984 Linus travled to Boston and
> hypnotized RMS into creating the GNU Project.
Not exactly. However, many of those who were involved in drafting
the first GPL, then known as the General Public License, back in
1984, were also involved in some of the revisions which became the
GNU public license, and the discussions of Linux.
Linux was an important "Chink in the Armor" of a serious problem we
had in getting UNIX, or any UNIX variant based on the AT&T licensed
code, configured to run on PCs and be marketable on a system that
could be purchased for less than $1000 including hardware.
At the time, in 1991-1992, AT&T still controlled the licensing of
not only UNIX, but a number of key patents and copyrights to
critical elements. AT&T consider the primary market of UNIX to be
the Minicomputer market, and the SuperComputer market. They had at
one time tried to market an Intel based machine, the 6300, which
was based on the PC-AT, and decided to skip that market entirely.
AT&T had set a price "floor", a minimum price which which could be
charged for UNIX. This floor covered both System V, and all
versions of BSD, as well as all of the commercial variants such as
SunOS, Ultrix, AIX, and HP_UX. Even SCO had to obey the floor,
which was actually a bit rediculous, since the PC hardware to run
SCO could be purchased for about $2000, and the cost of the
Operating system, including UNIX Kernel, Utilities, Documentation,
X11, TCP/IP, NFS, and development tools, could total nearly $5,000.
It took about 18 months to make the transition from that original
10,000 line kernel, which barely supported display through BIOS
calls, IDE drive, and basic serial I/O. By the end of the 18
months, Linux had grown to nearly 100 megabytes of "distribution,
including a 1/2 meg kernel, X11, a full suite of UNIX applications,
The SunOS OpenLook environment. Most of the contributors were
those who had already contributed to the GNU environment, and
simply sought to offer under GPL what had been taken from them by
other economic and political forces.
In November of 1993, within two years of that original 10,000 line
posting, Linux was being offered commercially by 3 vendors, and
offered features comparable to the Sun Sparc20 workstation, or the
HP/9000 workstation, or the RISC/6000 workstation, or even severs
which had sold for as much as $50,000.
Microsoft did everything they could to keep a lid on UNIX, Linux,
and OS/2. They did everything they could to keep coverage of Linux
and UNIX to an absolute minimum, pulling ads of publications who
gave positive coverage, and purchasing extra ads worth $millions in
publications which asserted that Windows NT 3.1 (which hadn't even
been released yet), was far superior to SunOS and Solaris.
Unfortunately, the campaign worked. But then Novell, led by Ray
Noorda, managed to break the AT&T control, by purchasing the rights
to UNIX. AT&T knew that Linux had removed their control of the
floor, and Novell offered a good price. Novell was preparing two
versions of UNIX, which they called UNIXWare. One was designed for
workstations, the other was designed for servers, to provide both
the capabilities of UNIX and the capabilities of Netware.
While Ray Noorda was out of the country, Microsoft gave the Novell
board of directors an ultimatum. Either they signed an agreement
promising end development of a workstation, or Microsoft would
announce it's intention to offer a Windows NT based server. The
wording let Novell assume that Microsoft had not already decided to
release an NT Server, but in fact Microsoft was working with a
number of companies including Dow Jones, Rueters, and Bloomberg, to
develop and release a Windows NT based server.
Novell fired the workstation team immediately, and when Ray Noorda
returned, he not only resigned, he left in a manner that triggered
a "crash" in the price of Novell stock from $45/share to $12/share
in less than 60 days. Noorda quickly reorganized the Workstation
team into a new company called Caldera, and used the gains from his
sales of Novell Stock to form a venture capital company that
financed not only Caldera, but also TrollTech, the folks who
created the QT library, and the KDE environment.
This made it clear to the developers within the UNIX community that
the only way their efforts could be protected from Microsoft was to
publish it under some variant of the GPL. By 1994, the Web and a
huge body of intellectual property related to it was being
distributed to the NCSA under a license that was almost identical
to the GNU public license. Two key pieces of this software
included Mosaic, which was based on Lynx, which had been released
under GPL, and Opera, which had also been released under both GPL
and under the NCSA public license.
The Linux kernel was also getting jazzed up, including some intense
changes to the library formats (ELF), a modular kernel that allowed
the installation of proprietary Modules without violating the GPL
restrictions on the kernel itself. More importantly, Linux
developers helped to develop the ability to detect the hardware on
the system, and to configure the system automatically. Not only
could Linux detect ISA devices, but also VESA, VLB, EISA, and
Microchannel devices.
> After seven years
> Linus went into his second phase where he wrote the Linux kernel
> and attached GNU to it to make a complete system. RMS has no
> recollection of this due to post-hypnotic suggestion.
RMS was the guardian of intellectual property rights worth
$billions. On numerous occaisions, various interests, including
Microsoft, tried to "buy him out", "buy him off", or shut him down.
Microsoft even tried donating money to MIT in exchange for forcing
Stallman to move off-campus. He eventually moved to a studio
apartment, but was able to continue to keep Free Software
Foundation archives secured at MIT.
Just as the Open Source community was thinking that Richard
Stallman was a bit "too extreme", Microsoft managed to not only get
intellectual property rights to Mosaic, but managed to get the
rights to create proprietary derivative products, which became
Microsoft's Internet Explorer. The NCSA "covered itself" by
revising the NCSA License agreement, giving the NCSA the right to
all rights, including the right to permit derivative works.
Needless to say, Netscape, who had hired, or offered jobs to anyone
involved with Mosiac and who wanted to write a new original Web
Browser, wasn't particularly thrilled at having Microsoft using
their intellectual property to put them out of business.
At this point, many developers retaliated by only offering their
"patches" to Mosaic and the NSCA HTTP server, under the GNU public
license. Eventually all of these patches were collected and
published under a slightly modified "Artistic" license and was
called "A Patchy Server". The Madison Avenue guys decided that was
a hard sell and changed the spelling to "Apache", the most widely
used server in the Web Server industry.
Not only was RMS vindicated, but there was a whole movement which
eventually became trademarked as the Open Source (tm) movement,
which eventually expanded to nearly 10 billion lines of code into
variations of the original General Public License, and the GNU
Public License.
Ironically, the greatest threat to Microsoft has turned out to by
Richard Stallman, a man whose integrity is astonishing. He has
managed to stand for the principles of the GNU Manefesto, and even
though considered a bit too extreme for most (Until 1996, he had
literally lived in a small office - an incredibly spartan
lifestyle. Eventually, at the insistance of MIT, he moved into an
off-campus apartment about the size of a small dorm room. Although
he controls one of the most valuable collections of intellectual
property on earth, his personal expenses amount to only a few
hundred dollars per month. This is because he understands that his
role is as trustee. He holds intellectual property created by
millions of people over almost 20 years. Most of the contributors
were professionals, consultants, administrators, and systems
programmers, as well as many others, who often developed on their
own time, on their own equipment.
In addition to providing a secure archive, he also archived the
notes, designs, bug reports, and new uses. In a corporate
environment, with today's patent laws, this archive would hold
nearly 2 million patents. Since much of this software predates the
ability to patent software, and the rest was published under the
terms of GPL, it can only be used to challenge many of the patents
now being filed by less ethical people.
Richard has recently refused to attend Linux events because he
believes that Linux should be acknowledged as GNU Linux, since the
Kernel itself is still published under the GNU public License. In
addition, the GLIBC API into the kernel is also published and
copyrighted by GNU/FSF.
It the purest sense, this is an entirely legitimate claim. But
Linux has become synonymous with much more than just a kernel
written by Linus Torvalds.
> But the saddest part of this revisionist history is that RMS is
> really convinced that Linus did not publicize Linux and there is a
> conspiracy by the distributors of the Linux Operating System
> against the GNU project:
Actually, Linus didn't. He was DRAFTED. Linus posted his kernel
and figured he'd done his job. Before long, he was getting patches
and enhancements. All of them under the terms of GPL.
The real "promoters" were guys like Patrick Volkerding of
Slackware, and Bob Young of Red Hat, and Ransom Love of Caldera,
and Rex Ballard of Dow Jones, McGraw-Hill, CSC, and IBM. John
"Maddog" Hall of Compaq and VA Linux and Linux.org. Actually the
Linux "Marketing Department" consisted of nearly 500 "advocates"
who worked through a number of channels ranging from private
mailing lists and Usenet Newsgroups to private letters to CEOs to
public speaking engagements, newspaper articles, and even books.
But getting Linux into the marketplace was a challenging balance of
challenges and compromises. We would introduce Linux capabilities
in the form of business value, then create marketing terminology
which was less likely to offend or alienate executives who still
liked Microsoft.
Web Servers, Intranet, Hosting Systems, Extranet, and Enterprise
servers, were all initially code-names for Linux-based and Open
Source based technologies.
> But don't you think that Linus had better communication skills
> when it came to presenting information for non-programmers,
> specifically end users?
>
> RMS> Not that I know of. As far as I know,
> he generally only tries to
> RMS> talk to programmers. He is not the one who publicized
> "Linux". RMS> That was done by others--especially by companies.
Absolutely true. Linus had his hands full just coordinating about
1,000 developers who were contributing enhancements at the rate of
as many as 10 changes per day. Alan Cox was second in command, and
eventually, 5 "second tier" leaders coordinated the updates to key
sections, and about 40 "third tier" leaders coordinated for
specific modules. And this was just the "Kernel Team".
> RMS> That these companies called the
> RMS> system "Linux" was partly just
> RMS> bad luck for us--they
> RMS magnified the initial mistake.
Linux came to become much more than just a Kernel. UNIX had become
a very tightly controlled trademark, and the standards
organizations seemed to push for even tighter control. Meanwhile,
economic interests seemed determined to try and "purify" UNIX of
it's GNU foundations.
Linux on the other hand, had come to represent a "Third Generation
UNIX", a UNIX based on Open Source software, which included a full
compliment of software, implemented in various forms of Open
Source. Linux eventually, became a symbol of the entire spectrum
of Open Source technology. At the same time, Linux also offered
the gateway and infrastructure to support commercial software
through interfaces and intermediate licenses such as LGPL and
"plug-ins" to popular Open Source packages.
At the same time, many new products were released on a license with
a variation of the GNU public license. In other cases, products
initially released under commercial licenses failed to get the
support of competitive Open Source products. As a result, the
licenses were revised to provide most of the assurances of the GPL,
but still protected the original products from predators such as
Microsoft. In many cases, this was because the company used much
of the same source code for both Microsoft and Linux platforms, and
had to isolate the code used to interface to Microsoft from the
Open Source code, in much the same way that LGPL isolated
commercial code from the GNU public license.
> RMS> However, in
> RMS> some cases it derives from their
> RMS> dislike for our idealism.
Richard has amazing integrity. While he did permit the creation of
LGPL, and permitted the linkage of commercial packages to Linux via
the GLIBC library and other LGPL based libraries, he refused to
permit the alteration of the license under which so much
intellectual property had been entrusted. While other CEOs were
engaging in "cooking the books" and "fluffing the revenue", Richard
Stallman stood firm in his refusal to allow any alteration in the
original GNU Public License.
New products were released under different licenses. The important
thing was that no one was contributing under the terms of one
license then having the license modified without their consent.
Given that many open source products can have as many as 1,000
direct contributors, and as many as 3,000 indirect contributors
(specifications, testing, bug reports, bug fixes, auditing,
packaging, marketing, user support, training, and documentation).
> RMS> Linus's ideas don't rock any ethical boats; ours do.
> Especially RMS> once they started including lots of non-free
> software, it was in RMS> their interest to hide us from the
> public.
Actually, the fact that there are now nearly 4 billion bytes
(Compressed) worth of code and software, nearly 80% of which has
been released under various Open Source licenses are a tremendous
solute to the outstanding achievment of Richard Stallman and the
Free Software Foundation.
Fundamentally, Richard was right, and did an outstanding job of
explaining the need for Open Source licenses, and how such licenses
could protect the creators of intellectual property.
True, many packages were not released under the GNU Public License,
but then again, the GPL was a combinition of agreements and ideals
established by one particular group of people with a particular set
of goals. Many of those involved in the original creation of GPL,
were trying to prevent any ports to Microsoft. They feared that
IBM, Microsoft, and Apple would do to the GPL software base what
they did to Xerox.
It's ironic that 20 years later, IBM and Apple have both become
partners in supporting Open Source.
--
Rex Ballard
Enterprise/B2B IT Architect
Visionary for the Linux community
http://www.open4success.com
Wayne Throop
: Eventually, at the insistance of MIT, [Richard Stallman] moved into an
: he controls one of the most valuable collections of intellectual
: property on earth, his personal expenses amount to only a few
: hundred dollars per month. This is because he understands that his
: role is as trustee.
In what sense does he "control" this intellectual property?
: He holds intellectual property created by millions of people over
: almost 20 years.
In what sense does he "hold" it?
It seems to me that the GPL forbids anybody, including RMS, from
"controlling", or "holding" the rights to the intellectual property
represented by GPLed software. That seems to be the whole point
of free software ("free" in the FSF sense).
: Richard has recently refused to attend Linux events because he
: believes that Linux should be acknowledged as GNU Linux, since the
: Kernel itself is still published under the GNU public License. In
: addition, the GLIBC API into the kernel is also published and
: copyrighted by GNU/FSF.
:
: It the purest sense, this is an entirely legitimate claim.
Where in the GPL does it say Stallman has the right to name
distributions of software, even distributions that consist entirely
of GPLed code? Seems to me that's the only thing that would make it
"legitimate" in a "pure sense"; a clause controlling the names of
distributions which include GPLed code. I must have missed that part.
Of course Stallman, the FSF, and the GNU project in general (insofar as
there is a coherent "project" producing the world's GPLed code) should
get credit. Lots of credit. Loads of credit. But nobody put him in
charge of Naming Things. Not even All Things Covered By GPL.
Steinmetz did the work on hysteresis. But the efficient transformers and
motors we owe to him are still named "westinghouse" and "general electric".
I doubt Steinmetz would find this worth boycotting IEEE meetings over.
He still gets the credit where it counts. And so does RMS and GNU.
: Richard has amazing integrity.
True enough.
: While other CEOs were engaging in "cooking the books" and "fluffing
: the revenue", Richard Stallman stood firm in his refusal to allow any
: alteration in the original GNU Public License.
The GPL itself doesn't extend Richard the ability to sell out.
So this "firmness" is at best overstated.
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Jay Maynard
>: Rex Ballard <rbal...@open4success.com>
>: Eventually, at the insistance of MIT, [Richard Stallman] moved into an
>: off-campus apartment about the size of a small dorm room. Although
>: he controls one of the most valuable collections of intellectual
>: property on earth, his personal expenses amount to only a few
>: hundred dollars per month. This is because he understands that his
>: role is as trustee.
The problem is that he feels, apparently, that all programmers should live
as he does. Baloney! I'm not interested in the monastic lifestyle.
>It seems to me that the GPL forbids anybody, including RMS, from
>"controlling", or "holding" the rights to the intellectual property
>represented by GPLed software. That seems to be the whole point
>of free software ("free" in the FSF sense).
Indeed. While it might be possible to buy RMS off (though I strongly doubt
it, as he's too immersed in his particular kookery), I'm not sure that doing
so would, say, allow someone to suck up GPVed code into a commercially-
licensed system with no consequences.
>: Richard has recently refused to attend Linux events because he
>: believes that Linux should be acknowledged as GNU Linux, since the
>: Kernel itself is still published under the GNU public License. In
>: addition, the GLIBC API into the kernel is also published and
>: copyrighted by GNU/FSF.
Uhm, I thought that RMS was staunchly against interface copyrights?!
>: It the purest sense, this is an entirely legitimate claim.
>Where in the GPL does it say Stallman has the right to name
>distributions of software, even distributions that consist entirely
>of GPLed code? Seems to me that's the only thing that would make it
>"legitimate" in a "pure sense"; a clause controlling the names of
>distributions which include GPLed code. I must have missed that part.
Me too. Further, by this argument, *anything* released under the GPV would
be named GNU/$NAME . Why isn't he arguing for that? Oh, right, only Linux
shows how empty his promises are, since it shows him up for being impossibly
slow to produce an OS.
>Of course Stallman, the FSF, and the GNU project in general (insofar as
>there is a coherent "project" producing the world's GPLed code) should
>get credit. Lots of credit. Loads of credit. But nobody put him in
>charge of Naming Things. Not even All Things Covered By GPL.
I won't even argue that. They do deserve lots of credit. They don't,
however, get to retroactively name someone else's product.
>: Richard has amazing integrity.
>True enough.
More like an amazing consistency in his kooky beliefs, which I'm not sure
deserves the honorific "intregrity", but the effect is the same.
>: While other CEOs were engaging in "cooking the books" and "fluffing
>: the revenue", Richard Stallman stood firm in his refusal to allow any
>: alteration in the original GNU Public License.
>The GPL itself doesn't extend Richard the ability to sell out.
>So this "firmness" is at best overstated.
Not to mention reaching for favorable comparisons...considering the
extremely tiny number of companies that cooked books. It's the perfect
anticapitalist flame, these days, and therefore entirely fitting for a
Stallmanite.
Dylan Thurston
There are so many things wrong in this story, I can't believe it is
anything but a troll. The author seems to live in a slightly twisted
version of the real world; almost every sentence seems to be wrong.
Let's see:
In article <akcatk$1vh$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>, Rex Ballard wrote:
> This is technically true. Linus created the original 10,000 line
> kernel which became the framework of the Linux operating sysetm.
The original 0.01 kernel was about 10,000 lines, that is correct.
Calling the kernel the "framework" of the operating system is debatable,
but not a statement of fact. [I would call what the distribution
provides the "framework": init scripts, rpm or deb packages, etc.]
> Ironically, Linus originally posted it as his contribution to the
> HURD project.
Not true, as you can easily from
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1991Aug25.205708.9541%40klaava.Helsinki.FI
At that time, Linus wrote:
> I'm doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won't be big and
> professional like gnu) for 386(486) AT clones. ...
or in the first public release of Linux, at
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1991Oct5.054106.4647%40klaava.Helsinki.FI
> I can (well, almost) hear you asking yourselves "why?". Hurd will be
> out in a year (or two, or next month, who knows), and I've already got
> minix. ...
Rex Ballard continues:
> Richard Stallman wanted to create a kernel that would be similar to
> UNIX, but would be entirely licensed under the GNU Public License.
Also not true. Richard Stallman wanted a system based on a microkernel
architecture, which would be (in his view, at least) better and more
powerful than Unix. That is what the Hurd is today (as far as it
works).
> Unfortunately, Richard Stallman was going to be hard to sell to the
> "suits" of most corporations.
At the time Linux (either the kernel or the operating system) was being
named, no one was in the least concerned about selling it to "suits".
> One of the Hurd promoters, I'm not sure, which, suggested that this
> new kernel be called Linux, which was "Linux Is Not UniX". It was a
> play on Minux. The allusion back to Linus was just icing on the cake.
The name Linux is not an acronym. Also, you probably mean "Minix", not
"Minux".
>> It's A REAL TRUE FACT! Back in 1984 Linus travled to Boston and
>> hypnotized RMS into creating the GNU Project.
>
> Not exactly. However, many of those who were involved in drafting
> the first GPL, then known as the General Public License, back in
> 1984, were also involved in some of the revisions which became the
> GNU public license, and the discussions of Linux.
There is no GNU Public License. The GPL stands for, and has always
stood for, the General Public License. Thinking that GPL stands for
"GNU Public License" is common, but I have no idea where you came up
with the idea that there were two distinct licenses.
I'm going to stop reading here; you clearly don't know what you're
talking about, despite your attempts to sound knowledgable.
Wondering why he's feeding the troll,
Dylan
Robert Uhl <ruhl@4dv.net>
>
> - If there hadn't have been the legal cloud surrounding BSD for a
> while, we might all be using BSD, not Linux.
I dunno. I think the the GPL deserves a lot of credit for the `Linux
phenomenon.' Without it, we might all be using a BSD of some sort,
produced by some corp, for some purpose. MS BSD, anyone?
I think that coders were also encouraged by knowing that their efforts
belonged to a kind of digital commons which would never be taken over.
I'll agree with you, though, that gcc was not assured its place in the
sun.
--
Robert Uhl <ru...@4dv.net>
Nobody ever got fired for choosing Microsoft. Nobody ever looked stupid
for choosing Linux. --Jebediah21
Robert Uhl <ruhl@4dv.net>
>
> In what sense does he "control" this intellectual property?
>
> : He holds intellectual property created by millions of people over
> : almost 20 years.
>
> In what sense does he "hold" it?
Because the FSF can change the GPL to say what they will, and most
GPLed software alows use under the GPL, or a later version, at the
licensee's discretion. With the stroke of a pen, the FSF could make
the GPL a BSD-like license.
--
Robert Uhl <ru...@4dv.net>
However, it is important not to stare at the enemy because he may sense
the stalker's presence through a sixth sense.
--US Army Field Manual 21-150 Chapter 7 `Sentry Removal'
Christopher Browne
> *Troll alert! Troll alert! Troll alert!*
>
> There are so many things wrong in this story, I can't believe it is
> anything but a troll. The author seems to live in a slightly twisted
> version of the real world; almost every sentence seems to be wrong.
That's pretty usual for the author you're quoting.
The "doesn't know what he's talking about, despite attempts to sound
knowledgeable" thing is totally par for the course.
--
(concatenate 'string "chris" "@cbbrowne.com")
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/multiplexor.html
"Sponges grow in the ocean. I wonder how much deeper the ocean would
be if that didn't happen." -- Steven Wright
Wayne Throop
::: almost 20 years.
:: In what sense does he "hold" it?
: ru...@4dv.net (Robert Uhl <ru...@4dv.net>)
: Because the FSF can change the GPL to say what they will, and most
: GPLed software alows use under the GPL, or a later version, at the
: licensee's discretion. With the stroke of a pen, the FSF could make
: the GPL a BSD-like license.
Note: "at the licensee's discression." So, Stallman comes up with
a later version of the GPL, and the licensee decides to continue to
use the software under the old GPL.
Shrug.
True, the FSF could decide to corrupt the copyright for software
they release, but can't retroactively charge for use of the existing
codebase previously released. Near as I can tell.
Henrik Enberg
> With the stroke of a pen, the FSF could make the GPL a BSD-like
> license.
Not the stuff copyrighted by them. It is typically written by someone
else and signed over to the FSF uner a contract that prohibits that.
--
Booting... /vmemacs.el
Isaac
> *Troll alert! Troll alert! Troll alert!*
>
> There are so many things wrong in this story, I can't believe it is
> anything but a troll. The author seems to live in a slightly twisted
> version of the real world; almost every sentence seems to be wrong.
> Let's see:
>
> In article <akcatk$1vh$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>, Rex Ballard wrote:
>> This is technically true. Linus created the original 10,000 line
>> kernel which became the framework of the Linux operating sysetm.
>
> The original 0.01 kernel was about 10,000 lines, that is correct.
> Calling the kernel the "framework" of the operating system is debatable,
> but not a statement of fact. [I would call what the distribution
> provides the "framework": init scripts, rpm or deb packages, etc.]
There isn't one single definition of an operating system. The various
academic definitions tend to be very nebulous about what is and is not
included.
In a broad sense, an operating system is a software layer that makes it
easier to program and use a program than would writing to and operating
the raw hardware. The kernel certainly can be viewed to do exactly that.
The kernel + libc also do that. Finally, the kernel plus all the other
stuff in a distribution also meets the definition.
This point was expounded upon in detail near the beginning of this
seemingly interminable thread.
> I'm going to stop reading here; you clearly don't know what you're
> talking about, despite your attempts to sound knowledgable.
>
> Wondering why he's feeding the troll,
I didn't think he was trolling, just that he was mostly wrong. There
did appear to be a fact or two in there, but nothing really worth
digging for.
Isaac
Robert Uhl <ruhl@4dv.net>
>
> ::: He holds intellectual property created by millions of people
> ::: over almost 20 years.
>
> :: In what sense does he "hold" it?
>
> : GPLed software alows use under the GPL, or a later version, at the
> : licensee's discretion. With the stroke of a pen, the FSF could
> : make the GPL a BSD-like license.
>
> Note: "at the licensee's discression." So, Stallman comes up with a
> later version of the GPL, and the licensee decides to continue to
> use the software under the old GPL.
But the licensee could also be, say, Microsoft or Sun. Who can then
take the formerly GPLed software, close it up nice and tightly and do
unto it as they have ever done to BSDLed software: use politics and
marketing to minimise the free code base, and force their twisted
version upon the common computer user.
> True, the FSF could decide to corrupt the copyright for software
> they release, but can't retroactively charge for use of the existing
> codebase previously released. Near as I can tell.
That's much the same with the arguments for the BSD license.
Philosophically, I'd like to agree with them. In an ideal world of
perfect competition and minimal politicking, I probably would agree
with them. But this is, as has been noted, an imperfect world. The
GPL as it stands is a good defense against proprietary software, and
the BSDL is not. The unfortunate thing is that the FSF can turn the
GPL into the BSDL with a stroke of the pen.
--
Robert Uhl <ru...@4dv.net>
Democracy is a form of government that substitutes election by the
incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few. --G.B. Shaw
Robert Uhl <ruhl@4dv.net>
>
> > With the stroke of a pen, the FSF could make the GPL a BSD-like
> > license.
>
> Not the stuff copyrighted by them. It is typically written by
> someone else and signed over to the FSF uner a contract that
> prohibits that.
I'm unfamiliar with that contract--but the GPL itself states that the
user can use the GPL as stated, or any later version promulgated by
the FSF. If the contract has language to the effect that the software
will ever be GPLed, there would be no violation, despite the GPL
losing its force.
--
Robert Uhl <ru...@4dv.net>
Eric: I want to live in a world where software doesn't suck.
Richard: Any software that isn't free sucks.
Linus: I'm interested in free beer.
Phillip Lord
ruhl@4dv> thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) writes:
>> ::: He holds intellectual property created by millions of people
>> over almost :::20 years.
>>
>> :: In what sense does he "hold" it?
>>
>> : Because the FSF can change the GPL to say what they will, and
>> most GPLed :software alows use under the GPL, or a later version,
>> at the licensee's :discretion. With the stroke of a pen, the FSF
>> could make the GPL a BSD-like :license. Note: "at the licensee's
>> discression." So, Stallman comes up with a later version of the
>> GPL, and the licensee decides to continue to use the software
>> under the old GPL.
ruhl@4dv> But the licensee could also be, say, Microsoft or Sun.
ruhl@4dv> Who can then take the formerly GPLed software, close it up
ruhl@4dv> nice and tightly and do unto it as they have ever done to
ruhl@4dv> BSDLed software: use politics and marketing to minimise
ruhl@4dv> the free code base, and force their twisted version upon
ruhl@4dv> the common computer user.
Well, this is true, but this would only be the case if the FSF
released a new version of GPL which allowed them to. Personally I
trust that the FSF will not do this. If I did not trust them, then I
could simply remove that clause from my copyright assignments.
And of course I could do that at any time. Although I can't rescind
the license on software that I have released in the past, I can
certainly do so, on software, or new versions of old software, that I
release in the future.
Phil
Wayne Throop
::::: almost 20 years.
:::: In what sense does he "hold" it?
::: Because the FSF can change the GPL to say what they will, and most
::: GPLed software alows use under the GPL, or a later version, at the
::: licensee's discretion. With the stroke of a pen, the FSF could make
::: the GPL a BSD-like license.
:: Note: "at the licensee's discression." So, Stallman comes up with a
:: later version of the GPL, and the licensee decides to continue to use
:: the software under the old GPL.
: ru...@4dv.net (Robert Uhl <ru...@4dv.net>)
: But the licensee could also be, say, Microsoft or Sun. Who can then
: take the formerly GPLed software, close it up nice and tightly and do
: unto it as they have ever done to BSDLed software: use politics and
: marketing to minimise the free code base, and force their twisted
: version upon the common computer user.
Explain to me how they can "force" anybody to use their modified version
instead of the unmodified version. And while explaining this, explain
how this is any more insidious than using FUD etc as they already do to
"force" people to use their software?
Sorry. Near as I can tell, Stallman isn't "holding" anything in any
significant sense. And I doubt he would want to "hold" the rights to
the software in the first place; the whole notion is NOT to "hold"
rights to software.
John Hasler
> I'm unfamiliar with that contract--but the GPL itself states that the
> user can use the GPL as stated, or any later version promulgated by the
> FSF.
No it doesn't. This is what it does say:
Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program
specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any
later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions
either of that version or of any later version published by the Free
Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of
this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software
Foundation.
Thus an author has the choice of
a) Specifying an exact version of the GPL in which case you must abide by
that version and that version only.
b) Specifying "Version X or any later version" in which case you may use
the work under version X or any later version.
c) Not specifying a version, in which case you may use the work under any
version you choose.
--
John Hasler
jo...@dhh.gt.org
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, Wisconsin
Robert Uhl <ruhl@4dv.net>
>
> > I'm unfamiliar with that contract--but the GPL itself states that
> > the user can use the GPL as stated, or any later version
> > promulgated by the FSF.
>
> No it doesn't. This is what it does say:
>
> Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the
> Program specifies a version number of this License which applies
> to it and "any later version", you have the option of following
> the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later
> version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program
> does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose
> any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.
<http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt>
I don't think that you'll find that passage therein. What you will
find--within the GPL itself--is the suggested manner in which to use
it:
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as
published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the
License, or (at your option) any later version.
I'll grant that, as the suggested use is not part of the terms and
conditions, the situation is not quite cut-and-dry.
--
Robert Uhl <ru...@4dv.net>
Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra and then suddenly it
flips over, pinning you underneath. At night, the ice weasels
come. --Matt Groening
John Hasler
> <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt>
> I don't think that you'll find that passage therein.
I just did. It's the second paragraph of section 9.
Robert Uhl <ruhl@4dv.net>
>
> > <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt>
> > I don't think that you'll find that passage therein.
>
> I just did. It's the second paragraph of section 9.
Sigh--I'm stupid. Dunno why I didn't find it--I did a search on
Each, then glanced through the thing to see if I could find it. Sigh.
--
Robert Uhl <ru...@4dv.net>
Christmas is weird. What other time of the year do you sit
in front of a dead tree and eat candy out of your socks?
Frank Gore
You like it or not, you have to face it:
Linux, the kernel, is GPL software. That is Linux, the kernel is
licensed under the GNU General Public License.
See:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/COPYING
Thus the name GNU/Linux is entirely appropriate.
If you do not like GNU & GPL, how do you feel about Linus & other Linux
kernel hackers' decision to license the Linux kernel under GPL?
If you do not like GNU & GPL, probably you should not use GNU/Linux.
Baby Peanut wrote:
> Look at this page: http://www.linux.org/
>
> On it is this quote: "Linux is a free Unix-type operating system
> originally created by Linus Torvalds with the assistance of developers
> around the world."
>
> It's A REAL TRUE FACT! Back in 1984 Linus travled to Boston and
> hypnotized RMS into creating the GNU Project. After seven years Linus
> went into his second phase where he wrote the Linux kernel and
> attached GNU to it to make a complete system. RMS has no recollection
> of this due to post-hypnotic suggestion.
>
> But the saddest part of this revisionist history is that RMS is really
> convinced that Linus did not publicize Linux and there is a conspiracy
> by the distributors of the Linux Operating System against the GNU
> project:
>
> But don't you think that Linus had better communication skills
> when it came to presenting information for non-programmers,
> specifically end users?
>
> RMS> Not that I know of. As far as I know, he generally only tries to
> RMS> talk to programmers. He is not the one who publicized "Linux".
> RMS> That was done by others--especially by companies.
>
> RMS> That these companies called the system "Linux" was partly just
> RMS> bad luck for us--they magnified the initial mistake. However, in
> RMS> some cases it derives from their dislike for our idealism.
David Kastrup
> You like it or not, you have to face it:
>
> Linux, the kernel, is GPL software. That is Linux, the kernel is
> licensed under the GNU General Public License.
>
> See:
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
> http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/COPYING
>
> Thus the name GNU/Linux is entirely appropriate.
>
> If you do not like GNU & GPL, how do you feel about Linus & other
> Linux kernel hackers' decision to license the Linux kernel under GPL?
>
> If you do not like GNU & GPL, probably you should not use GNU/Linux.
I like cake, but that does not make me want to be called cake/David.
I have read through the GPL, and I fail to have found the passage:
"Releasing software under this license gives the Free Software
foundation the exclusive right to unilaterally change the name of the
software to GNU/xxx and to demand that everybody complies or else."
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
Email: David....@t-online.de
Erik Funkenbusch
> You like it or not, you have to face it:
>
> Linux, the kernel, is GPL software. That is Linux, the kernel is
> licensed under the GNU General Public License.
>
> See:
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
> http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/COPYING
>
> Thus the name GNU/Linux is entirely appropriate.
>
> If you do not like GNU & GPL, how do you feel about Linus & other
> Linux kernel hackers' decision to license the Linux kernel under GPL?
>
> If you do not like GNU & GPL, probably you should not use GNU/Linux.
The GPL has nothing to do with the name. There is much software released as
GPL'd software, none of it (except the Actual GNU software) has the name GNU
in it. In fact, i'd doubt that FSF would want projects using the GNU name
if they weren't official GNU projects.
The argument that it should be called GNU/Linux is simply because it
includes GNU tools. RMS claims that Linux is really the GNU Operating
System modified to use a Linux Kernel (which seems to be implying that the
OS is not the kernel, but the base userland tools). The problem is that the
GNU tools could easily be replaced with BSD ones with little in the way of
complications, and it would basically be the same OS. As such, I fail to
see how the FSF can claim not only co-billing, but first billing in the name
no less.
While, granted, Linux would likely not exist today without tools like gcc,
it most certainly could and would exist without the base gnu tools. They're
just convenient. If RMS isn't careful, making too much of a fuss over it
will push some people into creating a BSD userland distro.
Immanuel Litzroth
David> Frank Gore <frank...@gmx.net> writes:
>> You like it or not, you have to face it:
>>
>> Linux, the kernel, is GPL software. That is Linux, the kernel
>> is licensed under the GNU General Public License.
>>
>> See: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
>> http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/COPYING
>>
>> Thus the name GNU/Linux is entirely appropriate.
>>
>> If you do not like GNU & GPL, how do you feel about Linus &
>> other Linux kernel hackers' decision to license the Linux
>> kernel under GPL?
>>
>> If you do not like GNU & GPL, probably you should not use
>> GNU/Linux.
David> I like cake, but that does not make me want to be called
David> cake/David.
I have great difficulty understanding this statement. If you are
trying to show that the logical result of applying the statement
>> If you do not like GNU & GPL, probably you should not use
>> GNU/Linux.
to cake and cake/david leads to nonsense then I think you are not
applying logic correctly.
Immanuel
Sinister Midget
Not to put words in anyone's mouth, I believe the point is, we all know
GNU/Linux==Linux==GNU/Linux. What's the point in insisting one or the
other?
I'm not going to run around all day talking just to be politically
correct and add the GNU on the front. I have to talk too much already.
Insisting on adding extras to the front of everything is only going to
accomplish the case of pissing me off, and won't change my behavior one
whit.
OTOH, if anyone wants to say it all of the time, more power to them!! I
won't "correct" them simply because I'm not going to use the extra effort
to add on things that most everyone already understands.
The same rational goes into typing. If everybody says we need to add GNU/
to the beginning, let's take it to it's logical conclusion and insist all
shorthand stop immediately. No more OTOH, BTW, HTH, ROTFLMAO or any other
abbreviation.
We use abbreviations. There are a lot of reasons, but I use them because
I'm inherently lazy. Since we understand them, nobody ever says to stop.
Ditto for the whole linux-GNU/Linux-Linux (we can't be properly
politically correct unless we also show it with proper capitalization,
after all).
If you want to use what you deem to be prim and proper, go for it. I, OTOH,
will continue using abbreviations as often and in as many ways as I like.
I believe that to be the point, though I could be wrong. It _IS_ the point
for me.
Note that this isn't the same as saying there's no relationship between
them. Linus tied linux to the GPL. Good for us, good for him. That doesn't
mean I have to consciously acknowledge it with every breath.
Basically I see this whole type of thing as an argument without a
disagreement.
--
I love the way Microsoft follows standards. In much the
same manner that fish follow migrating caribou.
GeneralPF
He's trying to get his due credit, I guess.
> I'm not going to run around all day talking just to be politically
> correct and add the GNU on the front. I have to talk too much already.
> Insisting on adding extras to the front of everything is only going to
> accomplish the case of pissing me off, and won't change my behavior one
> whit.
It's his own fault for choosing an acronym as difficult to pronounce as
"GNU".
> The same rational goes into typing. If everybody says we need to add GNU/
> to the beginning, let's take it to it's logical conclusion and insist all
> shorthand stop immediately. No more OTOH, BTW, HTH, ROTFLMAO or any other
> abbreviation.
I think LGX is an excellent compromise (kudos to Rapskat?). Although I
prefer GLX ("glix").
--
General Protection Fault
gene...@yahoo.nospam.com
Robert Uhl <ruhl@4dv.net>
>
> I have read through the GPL, and I fail to have found the passage:
> "Releasing software under this license gives the Free Software
> foundation the exclusive right to unilaterally change the name of
> the software to GNU/xxx and to demand that everybody complies or
> else."
Ah, that's coda 47, page 3, subsection a-8, section 14, part 2. Easy
to miss.
--
Robert Uhl <ru...@4dv.net>
If you want to travel around the world and be invited to speak at a lot
of different places, just write a Unix operating system.
--Linus Torvalds
Baby Peanut
> On 23 Aug 2002 06:09:23 -0700, Steve <steves...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >I meant that the FSF/GNU made it possible to hook up the linux
> >terminal and get a functioning operating system when Linus built the
> >kernal.
>
> Actually, there was at least one other body of code out there that Linus
> could have used: the BSD codebase. Why he chose the GNU codebase is
> something I've never quite understood, as it's doomed Linux to perpetual
> code bloat.
>
> >The parts were there waiting for him. Without GNU he would have had
> >just a kernal. He would have had to build the rest. He might have
> >even been delayed or put off building the kernal itself if it wasn't
> >for the existence of the GNU gcc compiler.
>
> Wrong. Again, he could as easily have selected BSD's tools.
Wrong. The AT&T vs. UCB lawsuit precluded use of BSD code at that time.
> >As for the other software/orgs you mention, more power to the original
> >spirit of my argument. Linus didn't build any of those things which
> >many new users get as default in their distro and they call "Linux".
>
> Wrong. Linus didn't build them...but, by your argument, they should be
> mentioned in the system name, too.
>
> >Linus __did not__ ask to have credit falsely assigned to him, but I
> >think he has an obligation to at least take the passive approach and
> >make a quick, short point out of this issue when it comes up.
>
> He did. "The midwife doesn't get to name the baby." -- Linus Torvalds
>
> >> IIRC, GNU has a HURD. They could publish an OS and distribution based
> >> on HURD and call it anything they want.
> >I'd like to see that.
>
> So would a lot of other people. We've been waiting 18 years.
Baby Peanut
> Baby Peanut wrote:
>
> > Look at this page: http://www.linux.org/
> >
> > On it is this quote: "Linux is a free Unix-type operating system
> > originally created by Linus Torvalds with the assistance of
> > developers around the world."
>
> kernel which became the framework of the Linux operating sysetm.
> GNU Public License.
RMS has written that Linus has never tried to work with the GNU
project. Where did you get the idea that Linus wrote Linux as his
contribution to the HURD project? See also:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1991Oct5.054106.4647%40klaava.Helsinki.FI
> Unfortunately, Richard Stallman was going to be hard to sell to the
> "suits" of most corporations.
Maybe if you cut him into bite-sized pieces and cover them in carmel
and dark chocolate and wrap them in colorful foil you will have a
better chance of making that sale.
> One of the Hurd promoters, I'm not
> sure, which, suggested that this new kernel be called Linux, which
> was "Linux Is Not UniX". It was a play on Minux. The allusion
> back to Linus was just icing on the cake.
Is Minux anything like MINIX?
Again see
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1991Oct5.054106.4647%40klaava.Helsinki.FI
Why was Linus storing this OS in a directory called Linux?
> > It's A REAL TRUE FACT! Back in 1984 Linus travled to Boston and
> > hypnotized RMS into creating the GNU Project.
>
> Not exactly. However, many of those who were involved in drafting
> the first GPL, then known as the General Public License, back in
> 1984, were also involved in some of the revisions which became the
> GNU public license, and the discussions of Linux.
>
> Linux was an important "Chink in the Armor" of a serious problem we
> had in getting UNIX, or any UNIX variant based on the AT&T licensed
> code, configured to run on PCs and be marketable on a system that
> could be purchased for less than $1000 including hardware.
Linux was developed while the Hurd stood still partially due to
problems with Mach licensing and mostly due to the fact that
historically UNIX kernels are small not by accident but by design.
RMS wrote that he chose the Hurd design because he though it would
accelerate development. What a mistake.
> At the time, in 1991-1992, AT&T still controlled the licensing of
> not only UNIX, but a number of key patents and copyrights to
> critical elements. AT&T consider the primary market of UNIX to be
> the Minicomputer market, and the SuperComputer market. They had at
> one time tried to market an Intel based machine, the 6300, which
> was based on the PC-AT, and decided to skip that market entirely.
But AT&T never marketed a UNIX for the 6300. AT&T actually had a
number of different Intel CPU PeeCees out over the years. The 6300
was 8088 or 8086 based. Later models with '386 could run System V.
The AT&T 7300 was the AT&T UNIX microcomputer released in the
timeframe close to the 6300's and it was 68010 based not Intel. It
flopped because it was too expensive. For it's price you might as
well pay a bit more and get a Sun. The tiny MFM harddisk and tiny
amount of core memory didn't help either.
> AT&T had set a price "floor", a minimum price which which could be
> charged for UNIX. This floor covered both System V, and all
> versions of BSD, as well as all of the commercial variants such as
> SunOS, Ultrix, AIX, and HP_UX. Even SCO had to obey the floor,
> which was actually a bit rediculous, since the PC hardware to run
> SCO could be purchased for about $2000, and the cost of the
> Operating system, including UNIX Kernel, Utilities, Documentation,
> X11, TCP/IP, NFS, and development tools, could total nearly $5,000.
>
> It took about 18 months to make the transition from that original
> 10,000 line kernel, which barely supported display through BIOS
> calls, IDE drive, and basic serial I/O. By the end of the 18
> months, Linux had grown to nearly 100 megabytes of "distribution,
> including a 1/2 meg kernel, X11, a full suite of UNIX applications,
> The SunOS OpenLook environment.
You mean Xview, a non-OLIT GUI which follows the OPEN LOOK Graphical
User Interface (GUI) specification.
> Most of the contributors were
> those who had already contributed to the GNU environment, and
> simply sought to offer under GPL what had been taken from them by
> other economic and political forces.
>
> In November of 1993, within two years of that original 10,000 line
> posting, Linux was being offered commercially by 3 vendors, and
> offered features comparable to the Sun Sparc20 workstation, or the
> HP/9000 workstation, or the RISC/6000 workstation, or even severs
> which had sold for as much as $50,000.
>
> Microsoft did everything they could to keep a lid on UNIX, Linux,
> and OS/2. They did everything they could to keep coverage of Linux
> and UNIX to an absolute minimum, pulling ads of publications who
> gave positive coverage, and purchasing extra ads worth $millions in
> publications which asserted that Windows NT 3.1 (which hadn't even
> been released yet), was far superior to SunOS and Solaris.
>
> Unfortunately, the campaign worked. But then Novell, led by Ray
> Noorda, managed to break the AT&T control, by purchasing the rights
> to UNIX. AT&T knew that Linux had removed their control of the
> floor, and Novell offered a good price.
Please read
http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/kirkmck.html
Seems that AT&T was in the process of suing BSDI but it wasn't working
out in their favor just before they sold UNIX to Novell.
> Novell was preparing two
> versions of UNIX, which they called UNIXWare. One was designed for
> workstations, the other was designed for servers, to provide both
> the capabilities of UNIX and the capabilities of Netware.
>
> While Ray Noorda was out of the country, Microsoft gave the Novell
> board of directors an ultimatum. Either they signed an agreement
> promising end development of a workstation, or Microsoft would
> announce it's intention to offer a Windows NT based server. The
> wording let Novell assume that Microsoft had not already decided to
> release an NT Server, but in fact Microsoft was working with a
> number of companies including Dow Jones, Rueters, and Bloomberg, to
> develop and release a Windows NT based server.
>
> Novell fired the workstation team immediately, and when Ray Noorda
> returned, he not only resigned, he left in a manner that triggered
> a "crash" in the price of Novell stock from $45/share to $12/share
> in less than 60 days. Noorda quickly reorganized the Workstation
> team into a new company called Caldera, and used the gains from his
> sales of Novell Stock to form a venture capital company that
> financed not only Caldera, but also TrollTech, the folks who
> created the QT library, and the KDE environment.
>
> This made it clear to the developers within the UNIX community that
> the only way their efforts could be protected from Microsoft was to
> publish it under some variant of the GPL.
Which is why BSD was eaten by MicroSoft.
> By 1994, the Web and a
> huge body of intellectual property related to it was being
> distributed to the NCSA under a license that was almost identical
> to the GNU public license. Two key pieces of this software
> included Mosaic, which was based on Lynx, which had been released
> under GPL, and Opera, which had also been released under both GPL
> and under the NCSA public license.
Not only was Mosaic based on Lynx but Lynx was based on NetScape and
NetScape was based on IE, honest!
> The Linux kernel was also getting jazzed up, including some intense
> changes to the library formats (ELF), a modular kernel that allowed
> the installation of proprietary Modules without violating the GPL
> restrictions on the kernel itself. More importantly, Linux
> developers helped to develop the ability to detect the hardware on
> the system, and to configure the system automatically. Not only
> could Linux detect ISA devices, but also VESA, VLB, EISA, and
> Microchannel devices.
>
> > After seven years
> > Linus went into his second phase where he wrote the Linux kernel
> > and attached GNU to it to make a complete system. RMS has no
> > recollection of this due to post-hypnotic suggestion.
>
> RMS was the guardian of intellectual property rights worth
> $billions. On numerous occaisions, various interests, including
> Microsoft, tried to "buy him out", "buy him off", or shut him down.
> Microsoft even tried donating money to MIT in exchange for forcing
> Stallman to move off-campus. He eventually moved to a studio
> apartment, but was able to continue to keep Free Software
> Foundation archives secured at MIT.
If only DEC had equipped the 2020 with a human deodorizing module he
could be living there still. We'd all still be able to use ITS on a
KS10 because the maintenence costs would be justified just to keep
that module running.
> Just as the Open Source community was thinking that Richard
> Stallman was a bit "too extreme", Microsoft managed to not only get
> intellectual property rights to Mosaic, but managed to get the
> rights to create proprietary derivative products, which became
> Microsoft's Internet Explorer. The NCSA "covered itself" by
> revising the NCSA License agreement, giving the NCSA the right to
> all rights, including the right to permit derivative works.
> Needless to say, Netscape, who had hired, or offered jobs to anyone
> involved with Mosiac and who wanted to write a new original Web
> Browser, wasn't particularly thrilled at having Microsoft using
> their intellectual property to put them out of business.
>
> At this point, many developers retaliated by only offering their
> "patches" to Mosaic and the NSCA HTTP server, under the GNU public
> license. Eventually all of these patches were collected and
> published under a slightly modified "Artistic" license and was
> called "A Patchy Server". The Madison Avenue guys decided that was
> a hard sell and changed the spelling to "Apache", the most widely
> used server in the Web Server industry.
>
> Not only was RMS vindicated, but there was a whole movement which
> eventually became trademarked as the Open Source (tm) movement,
> which eventually expanded to nearly 10 billion lines of code into
> variations of the original General Public License, and the GNU
> Public License.
>
> Ironically, the greatest threat to Microsoft has turned out to by
> Richard Stallman, a man whose integrity is astonishing. He has
> managed to stand for the principles of the GNU Manefesto, and even
> though considered a bit too extreme for most (Until 1996, he had
> literally lived in a small office - an incredibly spartan
> lifestyle. Eventually, at the insistance of MIT, he moved into an
> off-campus apartment about the size of a small dorm room. Although
> he controls one of the most valuable collections of intellectual
> property on earth, his personal expenses amount to only a few
> hundred dollars per month. This is because he understands that his
> role is as trustee. He holds intellectual property created by
> millions of people over almost 20 years. Most of the contributors
> were professionals, consultants, administrators, and systems
> programmers, as well as many others, who often developed on their
> own time, on their own equipment.
>
> In addition to providing a secure archive, he also archived the
> notes, designs, bug reports, and new uses. In a corporate
> environment, with today's patent laws, this archive would hold
> nearly 2 million patents. Since much of this software predates the
> ability to patent software, and the rest was published under the
> terms of GPL, it can only be used to challenge many of the patents
> now being filed by less ethical people.
>
> Richard has recently refused to attend Linux events because he
> believes that Linux should be acknowledged as GNU Linux, since the
> Kernel itself is still published under the GNU public License. In
> addition, the GLIBC API into the kernel is also published and
> copyrighted by GNU/FSF.
>
> It the purest sense, this is an entirely legitimate claim. But
> Linux has become synonymous with much more than just a kernel
> written by Linus Torvalds.
>
> > But the saddest part of this revisionist history is that RMS is
> > really convinced that Linus did not publicize Linux and there is a
> > conspiracy by the distributors of the Linux Operating System
> > against the GNU project:
>
> Actually, Linus didn't. He was DRAFTED. Linus posted his kernel
> and figured he'd done his job. Before long, he was getting patches
> and enhancements. All of them under the terms of GPL.
>
> The real "promoters" were guys like Patrick Volkerding of
> Slackware, and Bob Young of Red Hat, and Ransom Love of Caldera,
> and Rex Ballard of Dow Jones, McGraw-Hill, CSC, and IBM. John
> "Maddog" Hall of Compaq and VA Linux and Linux.org. Actually the
> Linux "Marketing Department" consisted of nearly 500 "advocates"
> who worked through a number of channels ranging from private
> mailing lists and Usenet Newsgroups to private letters to CEOs to
> public speaking engagements, newspaper articles, and even books.
>
> But getting Linux into the marketplace was a challenging balance of
> challenges and compromises. We would introduce Linux capabilities
> in the form of business value, then create marketing terminology
> which was less likely to offend or alienate executives who still
> liked Microsoft.
>
> Web Servers, Intranet, Hosting Systems, Extranet, and Enterprise
> servers, were all initially code-names for Linux-based and Open
> Source based technologies.
>
> > But don't you think that Linus had better communication skills
> > when it came to presenting information for non-programmers,
> > specifically end users?
> >
> > RMS> Not that I know of. As far as I know,
> > he generally only tries to
> > RMS> talk to programmers. He is not the one who publicized
> > "Linux". RMS> That was done by others--especially by companies.
>
> Absolutely true. Linus had his hands full just coordinating about
> 1,000 developers who were contributing enhancements at the rate of
> as many as 10 changes per day. Alan Cox was second in command, and
> eventually, 5 "second tier" leaders coordinated the updates to key
> sections, and about 40 "third tier" leaders coordinated for
> specific modules. And this was just the "Kernel Team".
>
> > RMS> That these companies called the
> > RMS> system "Linux" was partly just
> > RMS> bad luck for us--they
> > RMS magnified the initial mistake.
>
> Linux came to become much more than just a Kernel. UNIX had become
> a very tightly controlled trademark, and the standards
> organizations seemed to push for even tighter control. Meanwhile,
> economic interests seemed determined to try and "purify" UNIX of
> it's GNU foundations.
>
> Linux on the other hand, had come to represent a "Third Generation
> UNIX", a UNIX based on Open Source software, which included a full
> compliment of software, implemented in various forms of Open
> Source. Linux eventually, became a symbol of the entire spectrum
> of Open Source technology. At the same time, Linux also offered
> the gateway and infrastructure to support commercial software
> through interfaces and intermediate licenses such as LGPL and
> "plug-ins" to popular Open Source packages.
>
> At the same time, many new products were released on a license with
> a variation of the GNU public license. In other cases, products
> initially released under commercial licenses failed to get the
> support of competitive Open Source products. As a result, the
> licenses were revised to provide most of the assurances of the GPL,
> but still protected the original products from predators such as
> Microsoft. In many cases, this was because the company used much
> of the same source code for both Microsoft and Linux platforms, and
> had to isolate the code used to interface to Microsoft from the
> Open Source code, in much the same way that LGPL isolated
> commercial code from the GNU public license.
>
> > RMS> However, in
> > RMS> some cases it derives from their
> > RMS> dislike for our idealism.
>
> Richard has amazing integrity. While he did permit the creation of
> LGPL, and permitted the linkage of commercial packages to Linux via
> the GLIBC library and other LGPL based libraries, he refused to
> permit the alteration of the license under which so much
> intellectual property had been entrusted. While other CEOs were
> engaging in "cooking the books" and "fluffing the revenue", Richard
> Stallman stood firm in his refusal to allow any alteration in the
> original GNU Public License.
>
> New products were released under different licenses. The important
> thing was that no one was contributing under the terms of one
> license then having the license modified without their consent.
> Given that many open source products can have as many as 1,000
> direct contributors, and as many as 3,000 indirect contributors
> (specifications, testing, bug reports, bug fixes, auditing,
> packaging, marketing, user support, training, and documentation).
>
>
> > RMS> Linus's ideas don't rock any ethical boats; ours do.
> > Especially RMS> once they started including lots of non-free
> > software, it was in RMS> their interest to hide us from the
> > public.
>
>
> Actually, the fact that there are now nearly 4 billion bytes
> (Compressed) worth of code and software, nearly 80% of which has
> been released under various Open Source licenses are a tremendous
> solute to the outstanding achievment of Richard Stallman and the
> Free Software Foundation.
>
> Fundamentally, Richard was right, and did an outstanding job of
> explaining the need for Open Source licenses, and how such licenses
> could protect the creators of intellectual property.
>
> True, many packages were not released under the GNU Public License,
> but then again, the GPL was a combinition of agreements and ideals
> established by one particular group of people with a particular set
> of goals. Many of those involved in the original creation of GPL,
> were trying to prevent any ports to Microsoft. They feared that
> IBM, Microsoft, and Apple would do to the GPL software base what
> they did to Xerox.
>
> It's ironic that 20 years later, IBM and Apple have both become
> partners in supporting Open Source.
GeneralPF
> On Fri, 23 Aug 2002 15:56:22 -0000, Jay Maynard <jmay...@thebrain.conmicro.cx>
> wrote:
>> On 23 Aug 2002 06:09:23 -0700, Steve <steves...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>I meant that the FSF/GNU made it possible to hook up the linux
>>>terminal and get a functioning operating system when Linus built the
>>>kernal.
>>
>> Actually, there was at least one other body of code out there that Linus
>> could have used: the BSD codebase. Why he chose the GNU codebase is
>> something I've never quite understood, as it's doomed Linux to perpetual
>> code bloat.
>
> hanging over the BSD code base?
Yup. If it hadn't been for AT&T's legal wrangling we'd all be worshipping
a cute little devil rather than a wussy penguin.
Frank Gore
> While, granted, Linux would likely not exist today without tools like gcc,
> it most certainly could and would exist without the base gnu tools. They're
> just convenient. If RMS isn't careful, making too much of a fuss over it
> will push some people into creating a BSD userland distro.
By all means, you should all go for it. Such distros already exist.
They are called FreeBSD, etc. Moreover, Microsoft and the big
businesses strongly recommend them. You contribute, they can make
profit, without contributing anything back.
I do not think you are forced to use GNU/Linux after all. You should
probably give up using that GPL Linux kernel.
I think we would be all much better off.
GeneralPF
>>
>> While, granted, Linux would likely not exist today without tools like gcc,
>> it most certainly could and would exist without the base gnu tools. They're
>> just convenient. If RMS isn't careful, making too much of a fuss over it
>> will push some people into creating a BSD userland distro.
>
> By all means, you should all go for it. Such distros already exist.
> They are called FreeBSD, etc. Moreover, Microsoft and the big
> businesses strongly recommend them. You contribute, they can make
> profit, without contributing anything back.
He's suggesting a distro with a Linux kernel and a BSD userland. FreeBSD
has a BSD kernel and a BSD userland.
Such a thing does not exist.
> I do not think you are forced to use GNU/Linux after all. You should
> probably give up using that GPL Linux kernel.
>
> I think we would be all much better off.
Yes, we should all run *BSD.
Jay Maynard
>By all means, you should all go for it. Such distros already exist.
>They are called FreeBSD, etc. Moreover, Microsoft and the big
>businesses strongly recommend them. You contribute, they can make
>profit, without contributing anything back.
If you're going to call something "free" and prohibit corporations from
using it, then you're lying.
The BSD folks have it right.
FWIW, I just finished upgrading my iMac to OS X 10.2. Great system, solid,
and Unix-based - and no GPV anywhere to be found. It's what Linux folks wish
they had: a Unix-based system suitable for the masses to use on the desktop.
Peter Köhlmann
> On Thu, 29 Aug 2002 21:12:24 +0100, Frank Gore <frank...@gmx.net>
> wrote:
>>By all means, you should all go for it. Such distros already exist.
>>They are called FreeBSD, etc. Moreover, Microsoft and the big
>>businesses strongly recommend them. You contribute, they can make
>>profit, without contributing anything back.
>
> If you're going to call something "free" and prohibit corporations from
> using it, then you're lying.
>
Nope. They are just no free to change it without giving back the changes
Or to close it off from the original authors. If that bothers you, OK
> The BSD folks have it right.
>
Maybe. Maybe not. I simply don't care. If you do not agree with the GPL,
then don't use GPLed code. Use BSDed code.
> FWIW, I just finished upgrading my iMac to OS X 10.2. Great system,
> solid, and Unix-based - and no GPV anywhere to be found. It's what Linux
> folks wish they had: a Unix-based system suitable for the masses to use
> on the desktop.
Fine. Use it and be happy. Good riddance
Peter
--
Microsoft's Guide To System Design:
It could be worse, but it'll take time.
Rob S. Wolfram
> The argument that it should be called GNU/Linux is simply because it
> includes GNU tools.
It does include GNU tools, but just not any tools: the basic needed
tools to have a Unix-like OS like (a posix shell, fileutils (ls, mv),
shellutils (date, stty), textutils (sort, wc), tar, grep, awk, find and
many more. But one of the major parts of GNU software in a GNU/Linux
system is glibc.
> RMS claims that Linux is really the GNU Operating
> System modified to use a Linux Kernel (which seems to be implying that the
> OS is not the kernel, but the base userland tools).
Well, experts in this area consider this a plausible approach. Read up
on Silbershatz and Galvin for an example.
Wrt RMS's claim, how about this analogy: I set out to build a house that
I designed myself. I name this design a "Foo House". When I am nearly
finished building, I call up Bar Inc. to install a kitchen for me. They
install the "Bar Kitchen". Does that invalidate me calling the house a
Foo House? Should it instead be called a Bar House?
> The problem is that the
> GNU tools could easily be replaced with BSD ones with little in the way of
> complications, and it would basically be the same OS. As such, I fail to
> see how the FSF can claim not only co-billing, but first billing in the name
> no less.
Maybe those can, but the C library certainly cannot without major
overhauls in the kernel source. The reason why they deserve first
billing is because they were there when the kernel got written. Linus
even referred to it in his announcement post to comp.os.minix (...
nothing big and professional like gnu ...).
> While, granted, Linux would likely not exist today without tools like gcc,
> it most certainly could and would exist without the base gnu tools. They're
> just convenient. If RMS isn't careful, making too much of a fuss over it
> will push some people into creating a BSD userland distro.
I believe it when I see it. It would be perfectly legal, and it would be
correct to refer to it as BSD/Linux. OTOH, some people are porting the
FreeBSD kernel to the GNU OS and thus create: Debian GNU/FreeBSD
http://www.debian.org/ports/freebsd/
Cheers,
Rob
--
Rob S. Wolfram <aze...@hamal.xs4all.nl> OpenPGP key 0xD61A655D
"Whoa...I did a 'zcat /vmlinuz > /dev/audio' and I think I heard God..."
-- mikecd on #Linux
Mart van de Wege
>
> FWIW, I just finished upgrading my iMac to OS X 10.2. Great system, solid,
> and Unix-based - and no GPV anywhere to be found. It's what Linux folks wish
> they had: a Unix-based system suitable for the masses to use on the desktop.
With all due respect, Mr. Maynard,
With all your railing against the GPL not being really free, seeing you
espouse a proprietary-licensed system like Mac OS/X, no matter how good,
smacks a bit of hypocrisy.
Mart
--
"Time expands and then contracts
When you're spinning in the grip of someone
Who is not an ordinary girl"
Counting Crows - Hard Candy
Isaac
<aze...@hamal.xs4all.nl> wrote:
> Erik Funkenbusch <er...@visi.com> wrote:
>> RMS claims that Linux is really the GNU Operating
>> System modified to use a Linux Kernel (which seems to be implying that the
>> OS is not the kernel, but the base userland tools).
>
> Well, experts in this area consider this a plausible approach. Read up
> on Silbershatz and Galvin for an example.
Sibershatz also agrees that it's legitimate to call the kernel an OS.
>
> Wrt RMS's claim, how about this analogy: I set out to build a house that
> I designed myself. I name this design a "Foo House". When I am nearly
> finished building, I call up Bar Inc. to install a kitchen for me. They
> install the "Bar Kitchen". Does that invalidate me calling the house a
> Foo House? Should it instead be called a Bar House?
So RMS commissioned Linus to write an OS for him?
Isaac
Jay Maynard
<mvdwege...@drebbelstraat20.dyndns.org> wrote:
>On Thu, 29 Aug 2002 20:31:11 +0000, Jay Maynard wrote:
>> FWIW, I just finished upgrading my iMac to OS X 10.2. Great system, solid,
>> and Unix-based - and no GPV anywhere to be found. It's what Linux folks wish
>> they had: a Unix-based system suitable for the masses to use on the desktop.
>With all due respect, Mr. Maynard,
>With all your railing against the GPL not being really free, seeing you
>espouse a proprietary-licensed system like Mac OS/X, no matter how good,
>smacks a bit of hypocrisy.
Two different cases.
The GPV pretends to be free, and is not.
Mac OS X makes no such pretensions.
Further, I'll point out that OS X *is* built on a truly free OS (FreeBSD),
and without that freedom, it would be nothing like it is - and, probably,
nowhere near as good as it is, either.
The GPV is not necessary to enable truly great software, no matter how much
Stallmanites claim otherwise.
Robert Uhl <ruhl@4dv.net>
>
> If you're going to call something "free" and prohibit corporations
> from using it, then you're lying.
The GPL allows the _use_ of GPLed software by anyone--corporate,
religious, government, what-have-you. It allows modifications of the
code. What it demands is that the modified code be given to the users
thereof. Corporations can modify it. And they can sell it. But they
must give that same right to their software's users.
You know this.
--
Robert Uhl <ru...@4dv.net>
I once successfully declined a departmental retreat, saying that on that
day I planned instead to advance. --Alan J. Rosenthal
Christopher Browne
> Erik Funkenbusch <er...@visi.com> wrote:
>> The argument that it should be called GNU/Linux is simply because it
>> includes GNU tools.
>
> It does include GNU tools, but just not any tools: the basic needed
> tools to have a Unix-like OS like (a posix shell, fileutils (ls,
> mv), shellutils (date, stty), textutils (sort, wc), tar, grep, awk,
> find and many more. But one of the major parts of GNU software in a
> GNU/Linux system is glibc.
>
>> RMS claims that Linux is really the GNU Operating System modified
>> to use a Linux Kernel (which seems to be implying that the OS is
>> not the kernel, but the base userland tools).
>
> Well, experts in this area consider this a plausible approach. Read
> up on Silbershatz and Galvin for an example.
> Wrt RMS's claim, how about this analogy: I set out to build a house
> that I designed myself. I name this design a "Foo House". When I am
> nearly finished building, I call up Bar Inc. to install a kitchen
> for me. They install the "Bar Kitchen". Does that invalidate me
> calling the house a Foo House? Should it instead be called a Bar
> House?
The problem is that it's more like this...
You set out to build a house that you designed yourself. You named it
a "Foo House."
You wind up designing a plumbing system, an electrical system, and a
pretty cool security system.
Someone else winds up taking those designs, along with a _different_
foundation, and then puts up walls, windows, and a roof, all things
that you had never gotten around to doing _anything_ about. You never
actually put together a whole house; you merely built a few pieces of
it.
Should it get called a "Foo House," on the basis that you think that
the _primary_ credit for the house should go to you, because you
designed a few portions of the house?
Probably _not_.
And that's where the objections come from.
If the FSF were responsible for building _any_ complete system, they'd
certainly have _every_ right to give a name to that system.
But they never have put together a "Linux distribution." The nearest
thing that there has ever been was the Hurd 0.1 distribution.
Hardly anyone would object (aside from a few folks out in left field
that outright despise the FSF, and would be inclined to object to the
office staff picking bagels versus muffins as snacks) if the FSF
decided to release a distribution of Linux and various GNU software,
and call it "GNU/Linux."
If the FSF _wants_ there to be a "GNU/Linux," then they are _quite
free_ to do this. In fact, they'd be free to take (oh, say) the
Debian distribution, and say:
"Look! Here's GNU/Linux!"
And the software released by Red Hat Software and MandrakeSoft and
such would continue to be called whatever people wanted to call it.
But instead, we get futile attempts to assert that the FSF gets to
name other peoples' software.
It's futile, and the continuing futile arguing does little more than
make the FSF look bad, and suggests that there's nothing more
constructive that they can do than bicker over credit for the
popularity of Linux.
You are NOT likely to convince anyone that they should change their
mind to take your position. Ask yourself if, in view of that, there
is anything more constructive to try to promote?
--
(reverse (concatenate 'string "gro.mca@" "enworbbc"))
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/
Rules of the Evil Overlord #62. "I will design fortress hallways with
no alcoves or protruding structural supports which intruders could use
for cover in a firefight." <http://www.eviloverlord.com/>
Isaac
wrote:
> jmay...@thebrain.conmicro.cx (Jay Maynard) writes:
>>
>> If you're going to call something "free" and prohibit corporations
>> from using it, then you're lying.
>
> The GPL allows the _use_ of GPLed software by anyone--corporate,
> religious, government, what-have-you. It allows modifications of the
> code. What it demands is that the modified code be given to the users
It doesn't even demand that you give out the modified code unless you
give out binaries. You're free to modify it and use it in any way
you want without triggering a requirment to distribute source.
Isaac
Peter Köhlmann
> On Thu, 29 Aug 2002 22:00:40 GMT, Mart van de Wege
> <mvdwege...@drebbelstraat20.dyndns.org> wrote:
>>On Thu, 29 Aug 2002 20:31:11 +0000, Jay Maynard wrote:
>>> FWIW, I just finished upgrading my iMac to OS X 10.2. Great system,
>>> solid, and Unix-based - and no GPV anywhere to be found. It's what
>>> Linux folks wish they had: a Unix-based system suitable for the masses
>>> to use on the desktop.
>>With all due respect, Mr. Maynard,
>>With all your railing against the GPL not being really free, seeing you
>>espouse a proprietary-licensed system like Mac OS/X, no matter how good,
>>smacks a bit of hypocrisy.
>
> Two different cases.
>
> The GPV pretends to be free, and is not.
>
Repeatedly stating something does not make it true. It just makes you look
stupid, when you can not follow up with something *why* you think so
> Mac OS X makes no such pretensions.
>
And? So doesn't Microsoft
> Further, I'll point out that OS X *is* built on a truly free OS
> (FreeBSD), and without that freedom, it would be nothing like it is -
> and, probably, nowhere near as good as it is, either.
>
How do you come to this conclusion? I can hardly await the gory details
why OS-X is so much better technically without GPL
> The GPV is not necessary to enable truly great software, no matter how
> much Stallmanites claim otherwise.
So is BSD or any other license.
In other words: You spout crap
Peter
--
If you had any brains, you'd be dangerous.
Jay Maynard
>> If you're going to call something "free" and prohibit corporations
>> from using it, then you're lying.
>The GPL allows the _use_ of GPLed software by anyone--corporate,
>religious, government, what-have-you. It allows modifications of the
>code. What it demands is that the modified code be given to the users
>thereof. Corporations can modify it. And they can sell it. But they
>must give that same right to their software's users.
>You know this.
That does in no way invalidate what I wrote. Apple can't use GPVed code in
the same way as the rest of us.
Jay Maynard
<Peter.K...@t-online.de> wrote:
>> The GPV pretends to be free, and is not.
>Repeatedly stating something does not make it true. It just makes you look
>stupid, when you can not follow up with something *why* you think so
Because I've said it repeatedly over the past decade. However, I'll
summarize: The GPV is not free because it limits what others may do with it.
Limiting freedoms in the name of freedom is like the classic "****ing for
virginity".
>> Mac OS X makes no such pretensions.
>And? So doesn't Microsoft
You called me a hypocrite for supporting Mac OS X. I was explaining how the
cases were different.
>> Further, I'll point out that OS X *is* built on a truly free OS
>> (FreeBSD), and without that freedom, it would be nothing like it is -
>> and, probably, nowhere near as good as it is, either.
>How do you come to this conclusion? I can hardly await the gory details
>why OS-X is so much better technically without GPL
Because Apple was free (there's that word again) to build a user interface
layer on top of FreeBSD that gave users all of the features they'd come to
know and love, and retain large amounts of compatibility with existing Mac
software, while gaining the benefits of the Unix base technologies.
Had FreeBSD been GPVed, Apple could not have gone that route, and so its
users would not have had as good a base for their system. (Any argument that
Apple would have opened their own source is laughably naive.)
>> The GPV is not necessary to enable truly great software, no matter how
>> much Stallmanites claim otherwise.
>So is BSD or any other license.
>In other words: You spout crap
Huh? Your statement does not parse.
Peter Köhlmann
If you say so...
Peter
--
Only two things are infinite,
the Universe and Stupidity.
And I'm not quite sure about the former.
- Albert Einstein
David Kastrup
> On Thu, 29 Aug 2002 22:00:40 GMT, Mart van de Wege
> <mvdwege...@drebbelstraat20.dyndns.org> wrote:
> >On Thu, 29 Aug 2002 20:31:11 +0000, Jay Maynard wrote:
> >> FWIW, I just finished upgrading my iMac to OS X 10.2. Great
> >> system, solid, and Unix-based - and no GPV anywhere to be
> >> found. It's what Linux folks wish they had: a Unix-based system
> >> suitable for the masses to use on the desktop.
> >With all due respect, Mr. Maynard, With all your railing against
> >the GPL not being really free, seeing you espouse a
> >proprietary-licensed system like Mac OS/X, no matter how good,
> >smacks a bit of hypocrisy.
>
> The GPV pretends to be free, and is not.
You get the source with it and can improve it.
> Mac OS X makes no such pretensions.
You don't get the source with it and can't improve it.
> Further, I'll point out that OS X *is* built on a truly free OS
> (FreeBSD), and without that freedom, it would be nothing like it is
> - and, probably, nowhere near as good as it is, either.
And it can't become better in the way it became that good because you
don't get the source with it and can't improve it.
Basing a propriatary system on a widely advanced free system is like
turning into a dead end after traveling on a long road. Either you
stay, or you'll have to give up your dead end eventually in order to
get back to the main progress.
BSD allows getting stuck in dead ends. GPL doesn't. The GPL crowd
does not offer you the choice to conveniently abandon ship.
All proprietary offsprings of Unix by now are languishing or dead.
They could not keep up with the mainstream. They have swallowed up
revenues much larger than Linux or FreeBSD ever did. Still they
could not keep up and died. Their corpses are kept locked away,
nobody profits from them anymore. The economic toll they took was
enormous, and nothing remains.
> The GPV is not necessary to enable truly great software, no matter
> how much Stallmanites claim otherwise.
The GPL is a life guarantee for software. As long as there is
interest in a particular piece of GPLed software, it can be kept
alive even when the original vendor quits. This may well be costly
to infeasible: bit rot still is the destiny of many pieces of stuff
no longer overlooked by their original creator. But the software
gets a fair chance to stay alive as long as anyone is interested in
it.
Jay Maynard
wrote:
>> Mac OS X makes no such pretensions.
>You don't get the source with it and can't improve it.
Actually, the parts that were open source still are.
>> Further, I'll point out that OS X *is* built on a truly free OS
>> (FreeBSD), and without that freedom, it would be nothing like it is
>> - and, probably, nowhere near as good as it is, either.
>And it can't become better in the way it became that good because you
>don't get the source with it and can't improve it.
You can get the source for it - the non-proprietary parts, that is. This is
as it should be: Apple has control over the code they wrote, jsut as they do
not over the code they got elsewhere.
>Basing a propriatary system on a widely advanced free system is like
>turning into a dead end after traveling on a long road. Either you
>stay, or you'll have to give up your dead end eventually in order to
>get back to the main progress.
This is no worse than any other purchased product.
OTOH, I doubt strongly that OS X could have been created in the so-called
"free software" community: they don't have the stomach, or the skills, for
it. It departs from the common wisdom in several areas, most notably by
eschewing X for the GUI - something that allowed better compatibility with
existing software, as well as losing a LOT of bloat.
>BSD allows getting stuck in dead ends. GPL doesn't. The GPL crowd
>does not offer you the choice to conveniently abandon ship.
They don't offe you much choice at all...you must buy into the utopia hook,
line, sinker, rod, reel, and boat, or else you're not welcome at all.
>All proprietary offsprings of Unix by now are languishing or dead.
>They could not keep up with the mainstream. They have swallowed up
>revenues much larger than Linux or FreeBSD ever did. Still they
>could not keep up and died. Their corpses are kept locked away,
>nobody profits from them anymore. The economic toll they took was
>enormous, and nothing remains.
You're ignoring lots of things: the fact that many systems wouldn't have
sold in the first place without something to run on them, the fact that many
people got value out of running those systems (and still do; even though you
pooh-pooh them, they're still out there, doing a lot of hard work, whether
you choose to acknowledge it or not), and they're not going away, even if
they're not quite as strong as they used to be.
>> The GPV is not necessary to enable truly great software, no matter
>> how much Stallmanites claim otherwise.
>The GPL is a life guarantee for software. As long as there is
>interest in a particular piece of GPLed software, it can be kept
>alive even when the original vendor quits. This may well be costly
>to infeasible: bit rot still is the destiny of many pieces of stuff
>no longer overlooked by their original creator. But the software
>gets a fair chance to stay alive as long as anyone is interested in
>it.
This is true of any Open Source software, not just GPVed.
David Kastrup
> Is Minux anything like MINIX?
>
> Again see
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1991Oct5.054106.4647%40klaava.Helsinki.FI
>
> Why was Linus storing this OS in a directory called Linux?
He didn't. He stored it in a directory called Freax, and that was the
name he intended. Only the ftp maintainer Ari Lemke thought this name
sucked, and put it up under a different one (which had been an
unofficial working directory name, though). Wise decision.
> > Ironically, the greatest threat to Microsoft has turned out to by
> > Richard Stallman, a man whose integrity is astonishing.
There is nothing to being pigheaded. And the greatest threat has
never been Stallman himself, but the people that picked up some of his
ideas and turned them around in their own ways. Stallman is not
dangerous to Microsoft per se, he is much too off-the-wall for that.
But he is giving people ideas. And he is not going away. The
protestant peasant uprisings were never intended by Luther, and he had
no control over them, even if he tried. Stallman does not care about
business. But others do. "Open Source" has been one way to sell
corporations their own downfall in a veiled manner. It has taken a
brutal but effective toll on stock market and the corporations. Free
Software is nothing that you can easily profit from. But it is
something that will prevail.
The bible is by far the most printed book world-wide, even though
there is not much gain in the business of bible printing: anybody
could do the same.
> > He has managed to stand for the principles of the GNU Manefesto,
> > and even though considered a bit too extreme for most (Until 1996,
> > he had literally lived in a small office - an incredibly spartan
> > lifestyle. Eventually, at the insistance of MIT, he moved into an
> > off-campus apartment about the size of a small dorm room.
Well, Erdős Pál was a Hungarian mathematician that for most of his
life did not even have an appartment. He lived out of a single
suitcase. With that in hand, he gate-crashed colleagues, spent a few
intense weeks with them and left again when having finished a paper
together with them. He authored and co-authored more than 1500
publications, mostly heavily involved number theory. His suitcase
also contained his cash. Since his life style demanded little, and he
got quite a bit from his publications, he occasionally gave grant
"loans" to aspiring mathematicians. He rarely took anything back,
instead demanding that they should instead find somebody else that
would benefit from getting similar amounts.
Some people have the strength to live their life in their own way. In
my opinion, this does not call as much for compassion as it does for
envy.
D. Goel
>
> Not to put words in anyone's mouth, I believe the point is, we all know
> GNU/Linux==Linux==GNU/Linux. What's the point in insisting one or the
> other?
well, if you were working for 10 years on something, then someone came
along , contributed < 10% code to the system (i actually hear it is
3%), and changed the name of your project overnight to something
derived on their name, would it be fair to you?
DG http://24.197.159.102/~deego/
--
RIAA logic applied to cars--->
http://www.bbspot.com/News/2002/08/ride_sharing.html
Robert Uhl <ruhl@4dv.net>
>
> That does in no way invalidate what I wrote. Apple can't use GPLed
> code in the same way as the rest of us.
Yes, they can. Apple have _exactly_ the same rights we have: they can
use it; they can modify it; they can distribute modified copies. They
have _exactly_ the same responsibility we have: they must distribute
source if they distribute code.
--
Robert Uhl <ru...@4dv.net>
Persons compelled to habitate in structures of patent frangibility
should, under no circumstances, employ fragmentations of the lithosphere
as projectiles.
David Kastrup
> "Sinister Midget" <xu...@k.c-r.r.com> writes:
> >
> > Not to put words in anyone's mouth, I believe the point is, we all know
> > GNU/Linux==Linux==GNU/Linux. What's the point in insisting one or the
> > other?
>
> well, if you were working for 10 years on something, then someone came
> along , contributed < 10% code to the system (i actually hear it is
> 3%), and changed the name of your project overnight to something
> derived on their name, would it be fair to you?
You are arguing like a software hoarder. Torvalds did not take
anything away from the GNU project: the GNU project can still get its
act together and publicize a generally usable version of GNU as
designed. The existence of Linux is not detrimental to GNU, far from
it. It has contributed file system code and system utilities to the
GNU project and has provided a real life test bed.
Linux has made the remaining 10% quite easier for the FSF to
achieve.
D. Goel
> D. Goel <de...@glue.umd.edu> writes:
>
> > "Sinister Midget" <xu...@k.c-r.r.com> writes:
> > >
> > > GNU/Linux==Linux==GNU/Linux. What's the point in insisting one or the
> > > other?
> >
> > 3%), and changed the name of your project overnight to something
> > derived on their name, would it be fair to you?
>
> You are arguing like a software hoarder. Torvalds did not take
> anything away from the GNU project: the GNU project can still get its
> act together and publicize a generally usable version of GNU as
>
> Linux has made the remaining 10% quite easier for the FSF to
> achieve.
all that may (or may not) be true, but the point still remains that
GNU is within its right to seek to restore some bit of the original
name to the operating system.
Isaac
wrote:
>
>
> Further, I'll point out that OS X *is* built on a truly free OS (FreeBSD),
> and without that freedom, it would be nothing like it is - and, probably,
> nowhere near as good as it is, either.
So is freedom important or not? Apparently lack of freedom doesn't prevent
OS X from being good in your eyes. Your logic seems to imply that it would
be okay to have restrictions that you consider non free as only as we
build on a free OS. But that seems to undermine your point about the
importance of freedom. Perhaps I'm missing your point.
>
> The GPV is not necessary to enable truly great software, no matter how much
> Stallmanites claim otherwise.
Who claims this? I think you're just making strawmen. Does Stallman
belittle FreeBSD in any way?
Isaac
David Kastrup
> David
>
> > D. Goel <de...@glue.umd.edu> writes:
> >
> > > "Sinister Midget" <xu...@k.c-r.r.com> writes:
> > > >
>
> > > > GNU/Linux==Linux==GNU/Linux. What's the point in insisting one or the
> > > > other?
> > >
> > > 3%), and changed the name of your project overnight to something
> > > derived on their name, would it be fair to you?
> >
> > You are arguing like a software hoarder. Torvalds did not take
> > anything away from the GNU project: the GNU project can still get its
> > act together and publicize a generally usable version of GNU as
> >
> > Linux has made the remaining 10% quite easier for the FSF to
> > achieve.
>
> all that may (or may not) be true, but the point still remains that
> GNU is within its right to seek to restore some bit of the original
> name to the operating system.
The original name of what Linus has built is Linux. He has not
stolen any GPLed code, and neither has any distribution vendor.
Stallman has bitterly fought the BSD advertising clause as
prohibitive. The GPL is a license that does not cover naming or
credit issues. The GPL consequently does not give Stallman or "GNU"
or anyone else any right to naming.
Stallman has fought long and hard to persuade MIT to employ an
advertising-free license to X11 so that he might call the system he
wanted "GNU" without having to mention BSD or MIT. I think this was
correct, since it avoided the same sort of stupidity that he himself
now feels compelled to indulge in.
Mart van de Wege
> On Thu, 29 Aug 2002 22:00:40 GMT, Mart van de Wege
> <mvdwege...@drebbelstraat20.dyndns.org> wrote:
>>On Thu, 29 Aug 2002 20:31:11 +0000, Jay Maynard wrote:
>>> FWIW, I just finished upgrading my iMac to OS X 10.2. Great system, solid,
>>> and Unix-based - and no GPV anywhere to be found. It's what Linux folks wish
>>> they had: a Unix-based system suitable for the masses to use on the desktop.
>>With all due respect, Mr. Maynard,
>>With all your railing against the GPL not being really free, seeing you
>>espouse a proprietary-licensed system like Mac OS/X, no matter how good,
>>smacks a bit of hypocrisy.
>
> Two different cases.
>
> The GPV pretends to be free, and is not.
>
The GPL gives you freedoms you would otherwise not have. It does not
pretend to do more than that.
> Mac OS X makes no such pretensions.
>
> Further, I'll point out that OS X *is* built on a truly free OS (FreeBSD),
> and without that freedom, it would be nothing like it is - and, probably,
> nowhere near as good as it is, either.
>
And yet, although being built on a free OS, you have *none* of those
freedoms under Mac OS X.
> The GPV is not necessary to enable truly great software, no matter how much
> Stallmanites claim otherwise.
The Stallmanites do not claim such a thing. You are confusing them with
the Raymondites, who try to push Open Source, not Free Software. The
'Stallmanites' claim that the GPL is necessary to preserve certain
freedoms, and your Mac OS X example just proves their point.
All I see here is your personal dislike of the GPL. You're allowed to
dislike it, but your railing against it is a bit pointless.
And your Mac OS X example was rather illogical in my view. I have seen
your posts here and elsewhere, and it felt rather out of character to me.
I'm *not* saying you are a hypocrite, but I will say that you are letting
your personal preferences getting the best of your logic.
Mart
--
"It is not funny that a man should be killed,
but it is sometimes funny that he should be killed for so little,
and that his death should be the coin of what we call civilization."
Raymond Chandler - The Simple Art Of Murder
Paul Cooke
<SNIP>
>
> The GPV pretends to be free, and is not.
WTF does GPV stand for??? or do you have a problem typing UpperCase 'L's
on your machine???
<SNIP>
> The GPV is not necessary to enable truly great software, no matter how
> much Stallmanites claim otherwise.
Truly great software can be created in any licence form. Agreed.
However, the GPL prevents people/organisations from lifting the best GPL
software and turning it into closed source products. If they don't like
the GPL restrictions that accompany that piece of software, then they'll
just have to lump it and go and write their own code to do the same thing.
--
Paul Cooke
Registered Linux user 273897 Machine registration number 156819
Linux Counter: Home Page = http://counter.li.org/
Jay Maynard
>So is freedom important or not? Apparently lack of freedom doesn't prevent
>OS X from being good in your eyes. Your logic seems to imply that it would
>be okay to have restrictions that you consider non free as only as we
>build on a free OS. But that seems to undermine your point about the
>importance of freedom. Perhaps I'm missing your point.
My point is that freedom is something that cannot be embraced halfway and
remain true. The FSF's redefinition of "free" is such a half-measure. If it
is not free to all, it is not free.
OS X's technical goodness is due, in large part, to being built on top of
truly free software. I wish all of it were truly free, but I understand why
Apple would not wish that, and, unlike the majority of the folks here, I do
not think they're a bunch of dirty rotten nogoodniks for looking to their
corporate bottom line.
Unlike a lot of people in these two groups, I am not dogmatic about whether
the software I use fits anyone's definition of "free", either the true one
of the FSF's bastardization. If it's good and does the job I need done, I
use it. Therefore, I see no hypocrisy in using or discussing OS X, although
I was accused of being a hypocrite.
>> The GPV is not necessary to enable truly great software, no matter how much
>> Stallmanites claim otherwise.
>Who claims this? I think you're just making strawmen. Does Stallman
>belittle FreeBSD in any way?
No, but many posters here do, implicitly, bu holding out the GPV as the only
license worth using.
Jay Maynard
<mvdwege...@drebbelstraat20.dyndns.org> wrote:
>> The GPV pretends to be free, and is not.
>The GPL gives you freedoms you would otherwise not have. It does not
>pretend to do more than that.
Unless, that is, you include truly free licenses such as the BSD, MIT, or X
licenses in the discussion; at that point, there are no freedoms that the
GPV grants that you cannot get with the others - except the "freedom" to
dictate what others do with their code.
>And yet, although being built on a free OS, you have *none* of those
>freedoms under Mac OS X.
Wrong. The parts of the system that are freely available remain so. This is
as it should be - and, in fact, Apple would be powerless to have it
otherwise.
>> The GPV is not necessary to enable truly great software, no matter how much
>> Stallmanites claim otherwise.
>The Stallmanites do not claim such a thing. You are confusing them with
>the Raymondites, who try to push Open Source, not Free Software. The
>'Stallmanites' claim that the GPL is necessary to preserve certain
>freedoms, and your Mac OS X example just proves their point.
Except that it doesn't. The only "freedom" having the OS that OS X was built
on licensed under the GPV would add would be the "freedom" to demand that
Apple give away all of their (not insubstantial) work - and, in the face of
such a demand, they'd simply not do any of it. Therefore, the existence of a
truly free OS has advanced the state of computing where the GPV would not
have.
>All I see here is your personal dislike of the GPL. You're allowed to
>dislike it, but your railing against it is a bit pointless.
Someone must point out the emperor's nudity.
>And your Mac OS X example was rather illogical in my view. I have seen
>your posts here and elsewhere, and it felt rather out of character to me.
>I'm *not* saying you are a hypocrite, but I will say that you are letting
>your personal preferences getting the best of your logic.
Unlike Stallmanites, I don't let dogma get in the way of getting work done.
Jay Maynard
On Fri, 30 Aug 2002 12:51:59 +0000, Paul Cooke
<pa...@cooke100.freeserve-nospam.co.uk> wrote:
>> The GPV pretends to be free, and is not.
>WTF does GPV stand for??? or do you have a problem typing UpperCase 'L's
>on your machine???
The GNU General Public Virus...what the GPL would have been called if truth
in advertising laws applied. It is a legal virus that contaminates anything
it touches.
>However, the GPL prevents people/organisations from lifting the best GPL
>software and turning it into closed source products. If they don't like
>the GPL restrictions that accompany that piece of software, then they'll
>just have to lump it and go and write their own code to do the same thing.
Or, in other words, if you like Stallman's utopia, you're welcome to share
in the bounty; if not, go straight to hell.
Simon Waters
>
> >And yet, although being built on a free OS, you have *none* of those
> >freedoms under Mac OS X.
>
> Wrong. The parts of the system that are freely available remain so. This is
> as it should be - and, in fact, Apple would be powerless to have it
> otherwise.
Yes but nothing made Apple share the code changes they have
shared so far (at least not in the few bits of the project under
a BSD licence), and nothing guarantees they won't hold onto
future changes in those parts if project Darwin is successful.
Indeed they are obligated to their shareholders to hang onto
such changes if they deem it in the interest of Apple to do so.
So whilst you have the freedom to play with BSD, you have no
guarantee that MAC OS X will even maintain the limited openness
it has at present.
> Someone must point out the emperor's nudity.
Yes but the Darwin project, and MAC OS X would be stillborn
without all that lovely GPL'ed code in all the utilities.
Presumably you feel equally aggrieved at the hideous APSL?
Robert Uhl <ruhl@4dv.net>
>
> The GNU General Public Virus...what the GPL would have been called
> if truth in advertising laws applied. It is a legal virus that
> contaminates anything it touches.
How is that different from proprietary software? Note how painful it
is for vendors to free their source--generally it can never compile
straight out, because they have all sorts of proprietary libraries
made by other vendors.
The GPL makes things easier, as the entire package is under one
license, from the get-go.
--
Robert Uhl <ru...@4dv.net>
`We _must_ implement multi-processor object-oriented Java-based
client-server technologies immediately!'
`You know, FORTRAN and slide rules put men on the moon and got them
back safely multiple times.' --Matt Roberds
Paul Cooke
in other words... you hate the GPL and all it stands for... Goodbye...
D. Goel
> The GPL is a license that does not cover naming or credit issues.
> The GPL consequently does not give Stallman or "GNU" or anyone else
> any right to naming.
>
Very true. Neither is the FSF claiming that GPL grants it any naming
rights, AFAIU. It has never threatened court-action or claimed that
calling gnu/linux linux is illegal. FSF bases its argument on appeal
to a sense of fairness.
Rob S. Wolfram
> On Thu, 29 Aug 2002 20:59:59 +0000 (UTC), Rob S. Wolfram
>> Erik Funkenbusch <er...@visi.com> wrote:
>>> RMS claims that Linux is really the GNU Operating
>>> System modified to use a Linux Kernel (which seems to be implying that the
>>> OS is not the kernel, but the base userland tools).
>> Well, experts in this area consider this a plausible approach. Read up
>> on Silbershatz and Galvin for an example.
>
Yes, they even agree on a "content of the CD" approach.
>> Wrt RMS's claim, how about this analogy: I set out to build a house that
>> I designed myself. I name this design a "Foo House". When I am nearly
>> finished building, I call up Bar Inc. to install a kitchen for me. They
>> install the "Bar Kitchen". Does that invalidate me calling the house a
>> Foo House? Should it instead be called a Bar House?
>
> So RMS commissioned Linus to write an OS for him?
No.
Cheers,
Rob
--
Rob S. Wolfram <aze...@hamal.xs4all.nl> OpenPGP key 0xD61A655D
Anyway the :// part is an 'emoticon' representing a man with a
strip of sticky tape across his mouth.
-- R. Douglas
Rob S. Wolfram
> A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, "Rob S. Wolfram" <aze...@hamal.xs4all.nl> wrote:
>> Wrt RMS's claim, how about this analogy: I set out to build a house
>> that I designed myself. I name this design a "Foo House". When I am
>> nearly finished building, I call up Bar Inc. to install a kitchen
>> for me. They install the "Bar Kitchen". Does that invalidate me
>> calling the house a Foo House? Should it instead be called a Bar
>> House?
>
> The problem is that it's more like this...
>
> You set out to build a house that you designed yourself. You named it
> a "Foo House."
>
> You wind up designing a plumbing system, an electrical system, and a
> pretty cool security system.
>
> Someone else winds up taking those designs, along with a _different_
> foundation, and then puts up walls, windows, and a roof, all things
> that you had never gotten around to doing _anything_ about. You never
> actually put together a whole house; you merely built a few pieces of
> it.
I disagree with your version. If you take away the roof and walls, you
have no functional house, while if you take away X, perl etc from a
GNU/Linux system, you are still left with a functional Unix-like OS.
[snip]
Cheers,
Rob
--
Rob S. Wolfram <aze...@hamal.xs4all.nl> OpenPGP key 0xD61A655D
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.
-- Albert Einstein
Rob S. Wolfram
> On Fri, 30 Aug 2002 04:02:09 GMT, Isaac <is...@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote:
>>So is freedom important or not? Apparently lack of freedom doesn't prevent
>>OS X from being good in your eyes. Your logic seems to imply that it would
>>be okay to have restrictions that you consider non free as only as we
>>build on a free OS. But that seems to undermine your point about the
>>importance of freedom. Perhaps I'm missing your point.
>
> My point is that freedom is something that cannot be embraced halfway and
> remain true. The FSF's redefinition of "free" is such a half-measure.
Wake up and smell the coffee. There are *lots* of freedoms that you take
for granted which are not free, at least according to your redefinition.
Example: You have the freedom to move wherever you want to go to.
Still, you are restricted to enter my home uninvited or enter the CIA
building uninvited. By anyones definition with a possible exception of
yours, this still means that you have the freedom of movement. One more:
you have the freedom of speech. Still, you are resticted to shout "Fire"
in a crowded theater. Does that mean that you now lack the freedom of
speech? Stallman once worded this beautiful: the freedom to swing your
fist ends at the tip of my nose.
> If it is not free to all, it is not free.
GPLed software is precisely that: free to all, even those that get
modified versions down the chain. Tell me, were all those users of
Internet Explorer free to fix the bug in their software that was
introduced by zlib? So there is at least one instance of zlib code that
is not free. That is not legally possible with the GPL.
> OS X's technical goodness is due, in large part, to being built on top of
> truly free software.
This is a prime example of handwaiving. No comments necessary.
> Unlike a lot of people in these two groups, I am not dogmatic about whether
> the software I use fits anyone's definition of "free", either the true one
> of the FSF's bastardization.
Noted...
> No, but many posters here do, implicitly, bu holding out the GPV as the only
> license worth using.
... and a mere 9 lines below that we have this? Can you please make up
your mind?
Cheers,
Rob
--
Rob S. Wolfram <aze...@hamal.xs4all.nl> OpenPGP key 0xD61A655D
Mr. Cole's Axiom:
The sum of the intelligence on the planet is a constant; the
population is growing.
Todd Larason
> FWIW, I just finished upgrading my iMac to OS X 10.2. Great system, solid,
> and Unix-based - and no GPV anywhere to be found.
Between 10.1 and 10.2, they removed emacs, gzip, less, patch, and gcc?
They switched to non-GPLed versions of bc, dc, ls, groff, etc?
--
They can have my computer when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.
http://www.politechbot.com/docs/cbdtpa/ http://www.eff.org/
Jay Maynard
>On Thu, 29 Aug 2002 20:31:11 -0000, Jay Maynard wrote:
>> FWIW, I just finished upgrading my iMac to OS X 10.2. Great system, solid,
>> and Unix-based - and no GPV anywhere to be found.
>Between 10.1 and 10.2, they removed emacs,
Never touch the stuff, so I wouldn't know.
> gzip, less,
Never tried 'em there.
> patch, and gcc?
These are only present if you install the developer's kit.
>They switched to non-GPLed versions of bc, dc, ls, groff, etc?
It's a BSD userland, not a GPVed one.
Jay Maynard
<aze...@hamal.xs4all.nl> wrote:
>Wake up and smell the coffee. There are *lots* of freedoms that you take
>for granted which are not free, at least according to your redefinition.
>Example: You have the freedom to move wherever you want to go to.
>Still, you are restricted to enter my home uninvited or enter the CIA
>building uninvited. By anyones definition with a possible exception of
>yours, this still means that you have the freedom of movement. One more:
>you have the freedom of speech. Still, you are resticted to shout "Fire"
>in a crowded theater. Does that mean that you now lack the freedom of
>speech? Stallman once worded this beautiful: the freedom to swing your
>fist ends at the tip of my nose.
Your examples, as well as Stallman's quoting of someone else (I'm certain he
did not formulate that), illustrate the only acceptable limit on freedom:
you are not free to harm others without their consent. The GPV, however,
does not fit this exception, for violating it harms nobody.
>> If it is not free to all, it is not free.
>GPLed software is precisely that: free to all, even those that get
>modified versions down the chain.
It is free to all unless you're a programmer wishing to improve on the
software; then it is quite encumbered.
> Tell me, were all those users of
>Internet Explorer free to fix the bug in their software that was
>introduced by zlib? So there is at least one instance of zlib code that
>is not free. That is not legally possible with the GPL.
If zlib had been GPVed, it would not have resulted in IE being "free" by the
FSF's defintion; it simply would have been omitted or reimplemented. As it
wasm however, having it truly free resulted in higher quality software for
the end user than forcing M$ to reimplement it (which they would have
screwed up, just as with most everything else they do) or omit it entirely.
GPV advocates think they can change the world, totally ignoring the fact
that the world just doesn't work that way.
>> OS X's technical goodness is due, in large part, to being built on top of
>> truly free software.
>This is a prime example of handwaiving. No comments necessary.
Apple, and, more importantly, Apple's users - both technical and
non-technical - benefited from Apple's ability to base their system on a
solid, reliable, well-tested base that they could extend in meaningful ways
to provide a usable, simple system for the desktop. All of the benefits of
the open source development model that Linux folks espouse benefit OS X
users, too, even if they do not apply to the entire OS.
>> Unlike a lot of people in these two groups, I am not dogmatic about whether
>> the software I use fits anyone's definition of "free", either the true one
>> of the FSF's bastardization.
>Noted...
>> No, but many posters here do, implicitly, bu holding out the GPV as the only
>> license worth using.
>... and a mere 9 lines below that we have this? Can you please make up
>your mind?
Huh? I see no contradiction here. I use software that's best for the job, be
it truly free, FSF-style "free", or commercial. Many folks around here
refuse to touch anything but what the FSF will graciously not object to
others calling "free". This is what my first sentence was intended to say.
Peter Köhlmann
> On Sat, 31 Aug 2002 12:11:52 +0000 (UTC), Rob S. Wolfram
> <aze...@hamal.xs4all.nl> wrote:
>>Wake up and smell the coffee. There are *lots* of freedoms that you take
>>for granted which are not free, at least according to your redefinition.
>>Example: You have the freedom to move wherever you want to go to.
>>Still, you are restricted to enter my home uninvited or enter the CIA
>>building uninvited. By anyones definition with a possible exception of
>>yours, this still means that you have the freedom of movement. One more:
>>you have the freedom of speech. Still, you are resticted to shout "Fire"
>>in a crowded theater. Does that mean that you now lack the freedom of
>>speech? Stallman once worded this beautiful: the freedom to swing your
>>fist ends at the tip of my nose.
>
> Your examples, as well as Stallman's quoting of someone else (I'm
> certain he did not formulate that), illustrate the only acceptable limit
> on freedom: you are not free to harm others without their consent. The
> GPV, however, does not fit this exception, for violating it harms
> nobody.
>
Interesting view. Violating a license against the originals authors whish
does not harm that persons rights?
>>> If it is not free to all, it is not free.
>>GPLed software is precisely that: free to all, even those that get
>>modified versions down the chain.
>
> It is free to all unless you're a programmer wishing to improve on the
> software; then it is quite encumbered.
>
So, you want to be free to do with software to do as you please, and to
hell with the original author. Have I got that somewhat right?
< snip big piles of Jay Maynard junk >
Peter
--
If you had any brains, you'd be dangerous.
Todd Larason
> On Sun, 01 Sep 2002 07:52:13 -0000, Todd Larason <j...@molehill.org> wrote:
>>On Thu, 29 Aug 2002 20:31:11 -0000, Jay Maynard wrote:
>>> FWIW, I just finished upgrading my iMac to OS X 10.2. Great system, solid,
>>> and Unix-based - and no GPV anywhere to be found.
>>Between 10.1 and 10.2, they removed emacs,
>
> Never touch the stuff, so I wouldn't know.
So by "to be found", you mean something closer to "that I've noticed"?
>>They switched to non-GPLed versions of bc, dc, ls, groff, etc?
>
> It's a BSD userland, not a GPVed one.
(I was wrong -- 10.1's ls isn't GNU, either; that was my local
installation.)
I've been told that 'bc' and 'troff' at least are still the FSF GPL
versions. Are those not part of the userland, and also not to be
found?
David Kastrup
> (gnu.misc.discuss restored, since that's where I'm reading this thread.)
>
> On Fri, 30 Aug 2002 12:51:59 +0000, Paul Cooke
> <pa...@cooke100.freeserve-nospam.co.uk> wrote:
> >> The GPV pretends to be free, and is not.
> >WTF does GPV stand for??? or do you have a problem typing UpperCase 'L's
> >on your machine???
>
> The GNU General Public Virus...what the GPL would have been called
> if truth in advertising laws applied. It is a legal virus that
> contaminates anything it touches.
You are babbling. _Every_ license applies to a work and its
derivatives. That's what makes it a license.
> >However, the GPL prevents people/organisations from lifting the
> >best GPL software and turning it into closed source products. If
> >they don't like the GPL restrictions that accompany that piece of
> >software, then they'll just have to lump it and go and write their
> >own code to do the same thing.
>
> Or, in other words, if you like Stallman's utopia, you're welcome to
> share in the bounty; if not, go straight to hell.
Nonsense. If you like the software you get, you are welcome to make
any use of it that you want to, and are welcome to redistribute it
and derived versions under the same conditions that you received it
under. If you don't agree to the license terms, you are still
allowed to do anything with it except redistribute it.
This is more than most other licenses grant you. Liking a "utopia"
is not a precondition for anything.
David Kastrup
> On Fri, 30 Aug 2002 04:02:09 GMT, Isaac <is...@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote:
> >So is freedom important or not? Apparently lack of freedom doesn't
> >prevent OS X from being good in your eyes. Your logic seems to
> >imply that it would be okay to have restrictions that you consider
> >non free as only as we build on a free OS. But that seems to
> >undermine your point about the importance of freedom. Perhaps I'm
> >missing your point.
>
> My point is that freedom is something that cannot be embraced
> halfway and remain true. The FSF's redefinition of "free" is such a
> half-measure. If it is not free to all, it is not free.
If a call to bomb government buildings and detailed instructions for
building appropriate detonating devices can't be published in press,
it is not a free press. So what? Freedom of the press is not a goal
worth persuing in itself. It is always the freedom of the people
that is ultimately important, and that includes the freedom to live.
Stallman is not concerned about the freedom of software, but of
software users.
> OS X's technical goodness is due, in large part, to being built on
> top of truly free software. I wish all of it were truly free, but I
> understand why Apple would not wish that, and, unlike the majority
> of the folks here, I do not think they're a bunch of dirty rotten
> nogoodniks for looking to their corporate bottom line.
The problem with nonfree derivatives of free software is that they
are dead ends. Nobody except Apple can work on or with them, and if
Apple decides it does not want to fix a particular bug or will stop
supporting a particular version you need to have working, you as the
software's user are screwed terminally. Even when the problem has
been fixed in the original free software that Apple used for
producing their stuff, you have to rely on Apple to give you that
fix.
You are at the mercy of Apple. Whether this can lead to a problematic
situation may depend on circumstances, but it is entirely out of your
power to do anything about this.
That is the fundamental problem with nonfree software. A good
dictator might be better than a lousy democratically elected leader
for the people, but that does not make dictatorship in itself a good
thing.
> Unlike a lot of people in these two groups, I am not dogmatic about
> whether the software I use fits anyone's definition of "free",
> either the true one of the FSF's bastardization. If it's good and
> does the job I need done, I use it. Therefore, I see no hypocrisy in
> using or discussing OS X, although I was accused of being a
> hypocrite.
You were called a hypocrite because of trying to boast the advantages
free software gave you while using namecalling on those that cared
about maintaining those advantages.
> >> The GPV is not necessary to enable truly great software, no
> >> matter how much Stallmanites claim otherwise.
> >Who claims
> >this? I think you're just making strawmen. Does Stallman
> >belittle FreeBSD in any way?
>
> No, but many posters here do, implicitly, bu holding out the GPV as
> the only license worth using.
Nonsense. It depends on your objectives. If your purpose is to
spread the amount of freely available software, the GPL might be a
good choice. If your purpose is to spread the distribution of a
particular piece of software as far as possible, even as a part of
unfree software, a BSD-like license might be more appropriate.
If your purpose is to spew bile as much as you can while using
software that will fit your particular purpose for use irrespectively
of pricing or redistributability -- oh, you know about that more than
we would want to hear from you.
David Kastrup
> Jay Maynard wrote:
>
> > It is free to all unless you're a programmer wishing to improve on the
> > software; then it is quite encumbered.
> >
>
> So, you want to be free to do with software to do as you please, and
> to hell with the original author. Have I got that somewhat right?
Why would he then be touting the advantages of a nonfree system like
Mac OSX? No, it is more like he is perfectly willing to be
prohibited to do anything with software as long as the person he got
it from has the possibility to do everything with it. That those two
aspects might be connected in some manner escapes him.