Slashdot Log In
Feature:On the Subject of RMS
from the stuff-to-think-about dept.
On the Subject of RMS
The Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English defines ``eccentric'' to mean ``peculiar; not normal''. Is RMS eccentric? Yes, most definitly. He has got a meaning in his life and this alone would make him eccentric. True, he is also peculiar in many other ways. Who else would carry around his battered computer in a cloth bag? He does not care about what people think; he is on a mission. A mission to create a completely free operating system for everyone to use.
In his ideal world, all software is free software and sharing your code with your neighbor is standard practice. RMS lived in this world for some time when he was active around the AI lab on MIT. In some ways he lives in that world still. He is an eccentric idealist with a mission. It is not so surprising that normal people look at him strangely.
Someone once said to me that to be a hacker, you had to give up your normal life. Not true. There is a strong line between beeing a hacker and beeing a socially unfit hacker. Hackers like RMS, Alan Cox and Linus Torvalds are very clearly not socially unfit.
A few years ago, Linus got married with his wife Tova and they now have several kids. Alan Cox is married to Telsa (more commonly known as ``hobbit'' after her login name and email address). Even RMS had a sweetheat once named Alix. They eventually broke up, but that could have been for any reason. Neither I nor you have any business questioning what a hacker does on his private time. In many cases, I have a feeling we really do not want to know.
Hating, or atleast disliking, RMS has become a gimmick, much like hating Bill Gates and Windows. Linus Torvalds has managed to stay clear of that area by avoiding politics. When we judge Linus, we do it only by his coding. When we judge RMS, we do not do it based on his coding skills but rather on how his philosophical ideas differs from ours. I suppose that if Linus would get himself mixed up in these philosophical discussions, he too would be judged accordingly. It is fine that Linus does not do this as long as we all remember that we should not compare him with RMS the way most people do.
Free Software
When we speak of free software we speak of the right to study the program, distribute the program freely and improve the program with your own code. You do not need to do this, and many people probably do not even want to study how the program works or make their own improvements. But would it not be nice to know that you have that option?
Should you care? I think you should, but neither I, RMS or anyone else can force you to. We will try to get your attention to what we feel is important, but you don't have to follow us blindly. We want you to read our texts on philosophy and come to your own conclusion. If after you have read what we've written, you decide to walk some other path, we do not stop you. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html is a good start. Read what is written there and then come back here.
I do not think the BSD license is a good idea, nor do I think that the artistic license is a good idea. However, I'm accepting that people want to use them because their values in life differs from mine. I dislike those licenses because I do not agree with the philosophical issues of them. The same way as when I vote, I do not vote for the socialistic party because I do not agree with their philosophical issues.
Thinking that everyone in the whole world could agree to one specific license would be naive. Unless we all suddenly start to think very much the same, that will not happen. RMS knows this. I know this. The BSD followers know this. Everyone should know this. Frankly, would you want to live in a world where everyone thought the same way?
When I was writing this, I got an email from someone who had read about me on my home page. The core of the email was "I find you interesting because you are not normal." For me, that is a great compliment.
I will not go any further on the philosophical issues. For me, it is enough that everyone is happy with whatever license they choose.
The Free Software Foundation
The Free Software Foundation has worked to support free software for 15 years now. The main project is the GNU project which aims at developing a completely free operating system. At least some of you should notice that 15 years is a very long time. Proprietary software companies get out new versions of their programs and operating systems almost every other year. What has taken the GNU system so long?
When RMS started out to create the GNU system, he began by publishing the GNU Emacs which is the standard text editor in the GNU system. He then needed a compiler, so he made the GNU C Compiler and the GNU Debugger. Pretty soon, there were utilities available for most standard tasks but you still needed a kernel to run them. So the GNU project started writing the GNU Hurd which is a kernel based on Mach.
While we were working on the GNU Hurd, Linus Torvalds released his Linux kernel and when people combined this kernel with the finished GNU utilities, they got a free operating system. For the first time, someone could run a completely free Linux-based GNU system. But it was still a system made by hackers, for hackers. To correct this, we sponsored the early development of the Debian GNU/Linux distribution which should enable everyone to use this Linux-based GNU system.
It might have taken some time to get this system done, but you should never rush software development. Doing so would result in bad coding and a bad design. We do what we think has to be done in order to create a completely free operating system; and we do it in our own time.
Linux
Linux is a great kernel and I use it every day. I will probably keep using it on some computers even after I switch to the Hurd. But it is important that people remember what Linux is; a kernel. It's not a complete system and it's not fair to the community to call it that. As a developer and user of both Linux, Hurd and the GNU utilities, I feel it is important that people understand the difference. Noone should come to me asking for help with the GNU Emacs just because I have said that I work with Linux; they should ask me for help because I have said that I am using several tools from the GNU system.
To help everyone understand this, I have made it a habit of calling my system a Linux-based GNU-system, in short a GNU/Linux system. This is not because I only use GNU-utilities, it is because I use programs that are part of the GNU system. Some people argue that XFree86 should be given as much credit as the GNU system. Those people do not understand that by calling my system a GNU/Linux system, I give credit not only to the GNU project but also to XFree86. Why? Because the XFree86 has been adopted by the GNU project for use in the GNU system, as has Lynx been which I use almost daily. So by calling it a GNU/Linux system I give credit to every program which are part of--or has been adopted by--the GNU project.
The specific name is not really important, though some people might want to think so. The importance is to give credit to the GNU project where credit is due. One way to do so is by calling the system a GNU/Linux system, but there are many more ways to do it and only your imagination will limit them.
XFree86 and Adoption (Score:5)
Ok, well then, I'll say that the Linux kernal community has adopted the GNU tools. Now it is completely correct for me to call the entire system Linux.
Why GNU/Linux (Score:5)
In 1983 when Richard Stallman founded the GNU project, his goal was to produce a 100% free Unix-like operating system. This was a difficult goal because a Unix OS contains many components: the kernel, the shell, compiler tools, editors, windowing systems, etc. Because the task was so big, he looked around for components that were already free that he could use in the GNU system. He found, for example, TeX and the X-Window System, which then fulfilled the system requirements for a typesetter and a windowing system respectively.
For some components, there was no free implementation, so the GNU project set out to write them. GNU Emacs replaced the proprietary vi editor (though a free vi clone was eventually written by someone else). The GNU C Compiler replaced the proprietary pcc. Bash replaced the Bourne shell. Etc. These tools were all written because there was no other free program that did the job. Nobody at the GNU project wanted to re-write free tools that already existed. The goal was a 100% free operating system, not a 100% free operating sytsem written 100% by the GNU project.
Like many complex projects, the GNU system took a long time to develop. Rather than wait until the entire system was complete before releasing it, various components were released as they were developed. (Call it the Bazaar model if you will). They put their available code into a repository. This was the master GNU ftp server at prep.ai.mit.edu [mit.edu]. This archive contained the GNU system as a work in progress, including many tools that were ready for production use.
When Linus developed his kernel, people obviously needed the rest of the operating system components to go along with it. So how did people get these? They simply ftp'd to the GNU archive and downloaded all of the GNU operating system components that were availble. They combined these with the kernel, to produce the system they called Linux.
While you might not agree with Richard Stallman, I think it is easy to see why this would upset him. If someone downloaded the CVS archive of the free software project I am working on, finished it off before I could finish my version, then released it under a name that gave me no credit, I would probably be angry too. I think the reaction of the community if someone did this would be very negative. The GNU ftp site was their code repository and the builders of the early Linux distros did exactly this. They built a system that was largely GNU code (especially in the early days before distros got loaded up with lots of user level applications) but did not give credit to the GNU project.
Again, you might not see it this way. But I think that if the GNU project was something that you had founded and invested years of effort into, you might be a little bit miffed someone did this to you. While Stallman is often accused of being a bit strange, I find his attitude on the "GNU/Linux" issue quite normal.
It's Not Percentages (Score:5)
The GNU project identified all of the major components of the operating system: the kernel, utilities, the shell, compiler tools, windowing systems, networking, and so on. It then found or built tools for each of these areas. When Linus wrote the Linux kernel and people looked around for the components necessary to build a complete operating system, they found them because that is what the GNU project set out to build.
It is tempting to say that the GNU Project did not write some of these tools - such as the X-Window system - and thus say that the GNU influence on the GNU/Linux operating system is exaggerated. However, the GNU project never set out to build every component themselves, nor did they ever claim that all components of the free operating system were there because of their efforts. Instead, they looked first for existing free tools to do the job, and wrote a replacement if one could not be found. X existed already, so a replacement was not needed. However, had the X-Window system not existed, or had it been proprietary, the GNU project would have developed a replacement for that too, just as they developed a replacement for the C library, and m4 macro processor, and many other things.
Call it GNU/Linux (if you choose) because the GNU project built ane operating system, not because they wrote any number of individual components. Without the GNU project, disjoint components is all that would exist.
And let the flamewar begin... (Score:3)
RMS is an extremist - I don't think anyone could deny that. Extremists, by definition, look weird to more moderate folks... but we need extremists to show us where we can go. We don't necessarily want to follow them blindly, though. And most people, if they decide they want to go where he's leading, can't make it in one leap... that's where people like Linus and ESR come in, to show us how to get there the slow, easy way.
As for "GNU/Linux"... as I see it, it's the kernel that defines the OS. If I'm using Win95 exclusively to run Corel Office, it's still Microsoft Windows (or MS-DOS
And, those of you who think that saying "GNU/Linux" is appropriate... think about this one: what's wrong with "Linux/GNU"?
GNU/Linux Thread (Score:4)
Adam
GPL is not in GNU's long term best interests. (Score:4)
stated that the GPL is THE license, and should be used in preference to
other options such as the BSD licence.
Now don't get me wrong, I believe in much of what GNU stands for, and I
recognise the role the GPL has played in getting us to the stage we are
at today. However, because of this, I think it's time to start thinking
about tossing out the GPL and moving on to the next stage.
Now why would we want to do this? Have I gone crazy? Am I just trying
to subvert the goals of GNU? No, I just think the time for the GPL has
passed. In the past, when the GNU project was started, there was a lack
of free software, and a lack of knowledge about the issue. Thus the GPL
was essential in establishing the initial momentum, without having the
developers be disheartened at seeing their code incorporated into
commercial products that made substantial improvements over the free
versions.
But times have changed. People (at least programmers) now know about
free software (or open source). The general community is becoming aware
of it also. Yet they are becomming increasingly less aware of GNU (as
evidenced by GNU's attemps to gain publicity with the whole GNU/Linux
thing), and also less aware of the true freedom aspect, rather than the
free beer aspect.
I percieve the major problem here to be that the GPL does all the
protecting of free software for people. Instead of having people who
are aware of the benefits of free software, why it is good to have it,
and why it should be preferred to closed alternatives, it is instead
taken for granted by the wording of the GPL.
What I think needs to be done is to make free software an education
rather than a legal issue. Don't restrict the source code from being
included in proprietry applications - instead educate people on why
free software is supperior, and when you have achieved that, people
will use the free software over the closed alternative anyway. But the
key distinction with this as opposed to the GPL situation is that the
users will be taking their freedom for themselves, rather than being
handed it to them via the GPL.
There's an old saying, that goes something like: "You can untie the
dog, but it will still just be anather dog dragging along a chain
around it's neck". It's one that makes a very good point - the only
true freedom is one that is self earnt, people can not be given
freedom. They wont fully appreciate it, they won't value it, and above
all they wont know how to defend it.
Education is a far better solution than law, for reasons that largely
should be obvious, but also for other reasons. The law and the courts
are largely controlled by the rich. As we all know, in the software
industry, the rich are those who have an interest in keeping their
proprietry cash cows. Do you really want to trust the law to be able to
stand up to them, or would you rather see an educated user base that
will tell the proprietry companies where to stick it if they try
peddling their closed versions of free works?
Not to mention I find one of the few areas where RMS is a hypocrit is
in the area of using copyright (or copyleft). If he is so against the
copyright system, then surely he shouldn't be using it against the
companies, as two wrongs does not make a right. Instead, I think it is
a battle that would be much better faught without resorting to the
methods of the enemy.
Don't get me wrong, the GPL is vastly better than anything proprietry,
but I think it's time to look towards the future, and ask ourselves
what form do we want free software to take - free software because
people understand why free software is the way to go, or free software
because some license says it is so?
On a final note, doesn't RMS himself say in that free software song of
his, "When we have enough free software, we'll kick out those dirty
licenses evermore"? Well, I think we're starting to see a critical mass
of free software, and it's time to start kicking out licenses. So why
not start with the one we can most easily kick out, the very one GNU created,
the GPL?
Although, as Supertramp told me: I better watch what I say, or they'll be calling me a radical, liberal, fanatical, criminal
Free beer (Score:3)
Without dissing or flaming, I would like to gently point out that both MIT and the AI Lab have received massive subsidies from the US Government over the years, particularly the DoD. So, much of that "free" (as in "free beer") software really was paid for by the US taxpayer. And there were many taxpayers who objected strongly to some aspects of that taxation, such as DoD funding during the Vietnam war.
This isn't a trivial issue in the story of GNU, but I have yet to see it discussed in any great depth.
sPh
Naming conventions (Score:3)
Shouldn't that be a Thompson-Ritchie/GNU/Linux system? Or a von Neumann/Thomson-Ritchie/GNU/Linux system? A Hopper/Thomson(many other names/GNU/gcc? Very little in the world of computing is really, absolutely new. Where do we draw the line at claiming seminal credit via naming conventions?
sPh
My emphasis slightly different (Score:3)
That's certainly a valid line of argument, although I suspect there will be a few counter-arguments
However, I was trying to open up a somewhat different line of discussion. It just seems to me that the various histories and write-ups of GNU and FSF make the assumption that the original GNU tools appeared out of nowhere, with no antecedents, no support framework of infastructure, tools, etc., no souce of funding, etc. An act of spontaneous generation, as it were.
Whereas in reality the "AI Lab culture" was heavily subsidized by the DoD, and the buildings, computers, grad student salaries, overhead charges, and so on came from the U.S. taxpayer in the first place. And primarily from projects dedicated to finding better ways of killing people, although I realize that line of argument is very controversial and somewhat at cross-purposes to my point.
So it isn't quite as easy to create "free" things (whether free speech or free beer, although I have a hard time following RMS' argument on that one also) as RMS and FSF would have one believe. Invisible sources of funding always make life seem easy.
I do consider the GPL a work of genius, for what my opinion is worth (much less than 0.02 USD I am sure), and RMS' ideas very worthy of discussion. But this subtopic seems to get a free ride.
sPh
Divisions (Score:3)
This chafes my skivies... (Score:3)
So, the cult of GNU would say ``See the GNU tools are an essential and defining piece of Linux, ergo it is GNU/Linux!''
Not true. If you take your favorite Linux distribution, there is no reason why you couldn't replace the entire suite of tools by alternates (and without ever rebooting the machine). If you did this, what would you have? Why an altered Linux system, of course, but still a Linux system.
Now take your favorite Linux distribution and substitute in a new kernel. What do you have? Well, err, a new operating system. My point is that one piece (the kernel) actually defines the properties of the entire operating system while all other pieces (a superset of the GNU tools) can be replaced without changing the underlying structure.
As to the second point that I promised, I am disturbed not by the cult of GNU's desire for credit (they deserve credit, and a lot of it) but by RMS's insistence that the credit be noted by changing how we speak. Can you say ``double plus good?!?''
Recognition (Score:3)
o Put it in the man page. I have yet to find a gnu utility that was self-explanatory on the command line.
o Incorporate it into the kernel system startup. Why not? We have a penguin logo, why not put GNU in the background of it, or something *stylish and eye catching*. Or have a short "credit" on system startup.
o Put "gnu" in the version number and README files. Seems to be the most popular choice, I won't go any further.
o ASK for recognition! If you're really that concerned that GNU be recognized, go to the current community leaders - ESR, Linus T., RMS(duh!), Alan Cox, the *BSD developers, and ask them point blank - do you use the gnu linux utilities, and how useful do you find them? In this community - you are judged by what you contribute. If GNU has contributed as much as it boasts to have, this should be the easiest, and most effective, recognition.
In conclusion, I think the community knows how valuable the gnu utilities are, but all utilities have one thing in common - people take them for granted. Don't be suprised if nobody brings up the gnu utilities - they're UTILITIES!
--
Is this all really necessary? (Score:3)
People in the media who don't have the savvy to know what this all means will continue to choose the simplest name... Linux. Yes, it means a lot of different things, but it's similar to using the generic term "Windows" to mean one of Microsoft's operating environments (which one? 3.0, 3.11, WfWG, '95, '98, NT 3.51, NT 4.0, 2000?).
Requiring the use of GNU/Linux, or "Linux, courtesy of the massive effort of a lot of people, including Linus, RMS, Alan Cox, and others too numerous to mention" (to point out how ridiculous this is getting) is just silly.
Ahhh... I'm preaching to the converted.
Can we have a day on Slashdot where this silliness isn't re-hashed yet again?
--
Credit isn't what's sought, apparently. (Score:3)
Isn't credit being giving where it is due? In the source code? The past is not lost, but preserved with every copy of every utility being used and installed. What more can one ask than one's name and credit in every copy of source code?
A thousand names in a thousand places and yet, the one which everyone fights over is the title.
If we were talking about something Microsoft made, I'd agree, that maybe more effort should be made to determine where credit is due.
But with Linux and with the GNU portions of the distributions, and a variety of components from various developer groups, isn't enough credit given where it is due? In the code?
I still think RMS could benefit greatly from perhaps a more gentler approach to spreading his beliefs, but then again, every one has their own way of doing things. The fruits of his work are continually rippening and spreading. The GPL license is spread far and wide.
And yet, there is the complaint of not enough visibility, of no credit where credit is due.
What one calls their OS hardly depreciates any value from the beliefs behind it.. except perhaps in the case of MS Linux.. that would just plain suck.
All this fighting over a title and credit, I think, is pretty petty. And the two major persons who shines above it all because they are doing what they do best, coding and working with people to continue improving code, would be Alan Cox and Linus Torvalds.
I don't mention their names because I worship them. I pretty much don't worship anyone. No one deserves worship. But people do deserve respect.
I call my box a Linux box. I refer to the OS by the term Linux. When referring to distributions, I refer to them by the groups who put them out. Redhat, Debian, Caldera, Slackware, etc. I don't use the GNU portion of the name because it is already a given that GNU is there. The presence of GNU/FSF code in most distributions cannot be denied. But the works of so many others who have contributed work can't be denied either. That while they have GPL'd their code doesn't make their work a part of the GNU project. I am sure that at least a few people did not expect an organization to take credit for their work when they GPL'd their code.
I mean.. when John Doe writes code XYZ and GPL'd it, I'm sure he didn't mean to say, "I give this code to the GNU and FSF folks."
Because if that's what GPL means, then maybe it might be time to look for another licensing agreement.
Just my two cents.
- Wing
- Reap the fires of the soul.
- Harvest the passion of life.
Why GNU/Linux (Score:3)
RMS isn't asking everyone to call it GNU/Linux to get creddit himself. If you knew him better, you'd understand all he cares about is freedom. Most recent GNU/Linux users and supporters fail to see how the important thing of what they call Linux is the fact that it is free. They just use it/support it because it is rock solid and lightning fast. When he asks us to call it GNU/Linux, RMS is doing it to remind everyone how GNU/Linux isn't just another operating system, it is a free operating system (like the BSDs, yes) and that's the important thing.
He doesn't want publicity for himself, but he wants to be sure we won't forget what the point is and turn the GNU/Linux world into just another community full of propietary software, specially now with all the attention it is receiving.
Alejo.
This is just dumb. (Score:3)
I'm really sick and tired of the FSF for trying to take credit for things that aren't theirs to take credit for. Linux is the prime example of this. Linux uses some FSF owned tools, but it's perfectly useable w/o them. The Demon Linux project is an example of this (they are supposedly making a distribution with no FSF owned software). They don't deserve any credit for the kernel. They do deserve credit for helping the free software movement and for any tools developed by the FSF.
It's because of arogance like this that I will NEVER call Linux GNU/Linux (or even worse lignux, atleast people say RMS was kidding with that one, I really hope so). To me it seems like RMS is just miffed that Linus/Linux is stealing all of the show. Guess what RMS, w/o Linux no one would give a damn about the FSF. Hurd has been vaporware for a long time now, and it will probally be quite sometime before it's completely useable.
I would prefer if RMS and the FSF would just shutup and stop trying to force their ideology on us. I don't care what you think I should call my system. I use Linux, I have for years, and I will continue running Linux for years. If you really want GNU/Linux start your own dist called "GNU/Linux". Until then shutup.
So the world isn't either black and white (Score:4)
And some good can come out of tainted things. If the world for RMS was a freer place for the artificiality of government subsidies, the lessen isn't to chuck the freedom, it's to chuck the government subsidies. And he did, to a degree. He earned money, at least for a while, selling GNU software. I'm not sure what RMS is currently doing, my understanding is that he's an expensive independent consultant.
And the current FSF isn't subsidised by the government. It's an interesting historical detail that they were, but then again, much of the valued things in the world have been funded by governments. Where would we be without the roads in the world? Where would we be without all that money poored into medical science? Into mechanical technology? The internet was based on the ARPAnet, which was a government (military) network. Should we abandon the net because it has a tainted origin?
Everything grows. We're living in a world somewhat like the MIT AI labs of twenty years ago. And Migael de Icaza isn't recieving government funding, nor is Linus, Alan Cox, etc.
The MIT AI lab wasn't perfect, but neither is anything else. Government subsidies don't really have anything to do with the modern Open Source/Free Software movement.
Huh? GNU adopted XFree86, ergo should be named GNU (Score:5)
people share this opinion, or many others.
Here are several messages I've sent RMS on the general topic.
- Jim Gettys
> Sender: owner-linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu
> From: Richard Stallman
> Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1998 18:17:02 -0700 (MST)
> To: fizban@tin.it
> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu
> Subject: Re: Article: IBM wants to "clean up the license" of Linux
> -----
> Please show a
> bit more respect for Linus and all the other people and their efforts...:
> call the linux kernel "Linux" as Linus wanted to call it
>
> I always call the kernel Linux, for precisely that reason. Linus
> Torvalds started that program, and he says the name is Linux, so I
> call it Linux out of respect for him.
>
> I ask people to do the same thing for the operating system as a whole.
> It was started in 1984 by the GNU Project. For years, before Linux
> was written, we developed many components (not just "tools") of this
> system, and we did so as steps in the development of the system as a
> whole. (See the GNU Manifesto.)
>
> Linux (the kernel) doesn't come from the GNU project, and we never try
> to claim any credit for it. When people say that the GNU project
> "developed important parts of Linux", we explain that we don't deserve
> that honor, because none of Linux is our work. And we never call
> Linux a GNU program. (Some people have misinterpreted this as a
> gesture of rejection of Linux; actually, it is because we're not
> entitled to say so.)
>
> But while the GNU project played no role in the writing of Linux, it
> started the development of the operating system as a whole. That's
> what the GNU project was and is about. Writing dozens of programs
> such as GCC, Bash and libc--not only "tools"--was just a part this
> larger project.
>
> The system version most of us are using is the combination of Linux
> and the GNU system. "GNU/Linux" is a good way to describe that
> combination, and when I write that, it always means the whole
> combination. The kernel is simply Linux.
>
One might as well also say that the whole system should be called
"GNU/X/Linux"; the X Window system contribution, in terms of number of
lines of code of software, is very large. People should remember that
not only "hackers" contributed, but a number of major companies, including
my own, contributed large amounts to that code base, under fully free
terms (where the UNIX vendors went wrong was stuff built on top, and the
silly GUI wars of the beginning of the decade). In terms of total effort
and number of lines of code, both GNU and X represent much larger efforts
than the base operating system.
But the reality is that this is too cumbersome, whether you say "GNU/Linux"
or "GNU/X/Linux. The market and men on the street now associates "Linux"
with the whole combination, for better or for worse. I'm personally very
gratified that our (in this case, the X Window system community, GNU
community, and Linux community) are affecting a large and growing number
of people, rather than withering and dying from the effects of Redmond.
So long as Linus gives credit where credit is due to the various groups
that make up this community, there is little to be gained (and arguably,
much to be lost) by confusing people with a more complex nomencature.
Obviously, when writing for a technical audience, (rather than the mass
audience), being more clear what you mean may make sense and give credit
where credit is due. But lets not confuse the mass market, which
has enough trouble understanding Linux as it is.
- Jim Gettys
From: jg@pa.dec.com (Jim Gettys)
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 11:36:03 -0800
To: rms@gnu.org
Cc: allbery@kf8nh.apk.net, fizban@tin.it, linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu
Subject: Re: Article: IBM wants to "clean up the license" of Linux
For better or worse (I believe for the better), the term Linux has grown
to cover the merged result of a large number of efforts of the last 15 years.
The components of the Linux system include (at least) in NO particular order:
o the Linux Kernel effort,
o BSD UNIX development,
o X Window System,
o Perl, Python, TK/TCL,
o and the large efforts that go under the GNU banner.
All of these are major efforts, by MANY talented individuals and corporations
(some of whom put many millions of dollars into the development of the
code, whether it be Digital/Compaq, HP, IBM, Sun, Red Hat, SuSE, Netscape,
Cygnus, and many others). They represent many man years of sweat, often under
very hard deadlines (at least in the X Window System and Netscape cases,
and probably others, at great personal cost). If you tried to remove any
one of them, you would end up without Linux (though some substitutes for
some pieces exist).
Calling out any particular one or subset of these efforts for particular
praise in a common term, when the current general term connotes all of the
contributors, slights the contributions of the others; this is why I believe
it is divisive. I have emotional scars left from the last round of
divisiveness (the UNIX GUI wars), and CANNOT condone any action that would
condone such divisions, and the results of such divisions, particularly
at a time when unity is needed.
I therefore believe that uses of the term GNU/Linux are divisive and wrong.
Therefore, I will not personally condone any such usage, and WILL NOT
make such distinctions, and strongly discourage others in doing so. Lets
spend our time giving credit to each other for what they have done for
us, rather than asking others to give credit to us for what we have done
for them. (to paraphrase Kennedy). One is inclusive, the other is divisive.
This is my final comment on this thread.
- Jim Gettys
the naming thing (Score:3)
The word GNU has no unix ring to it whatsoever. Yes, it's a clever acronym. Yes, I even like the name very much. But if you talk about GNU to a non-unix person, chances are they'll reply, "Your what hurts?"
By contrast, the name Linux is quite uncanny; it contains all the letters that are in the word unix, plus it's the creator's first name with the last letter changed to an x. It looks and sounds like the name unix, but it also looks and sounds like the name Linus. It's a strange coincidence, but it works extremely well. I've heard a number of people mispronounce the word Linux, but that seems to be happening less and less.
The article says that RMS is eccentric. Many people likewise consider the name GNU eccentric, especially compared to the more familiar-sounding Linux - which of course is based on the eccentric name unix. I repeat, to them GNU is eccentric, but Linux is normal because it sounds like a well-established name, a name that just happens to be eccentric.
To be honest, marketing is just not RMS's forte - but that is meant as a compliment; it isn't Thompson's or Ritchie's forte either. IMHO, the name HURD resembles the sound of blowing chunks more than it does a stampede of free-running antelope-like animals. Eccentric indeed. And a man of great integrity, and a great hacker who will forever be close to our hearts regardless of the name we settle on.
Has the world forgotten Columbus? Neither will it forget RMS.
GPL is "Free Beer" (Score:3)
As much as I admire the FSF (and I do), and think the GPL is a Good Thing, their philosophy is contradictory:
They speak of freedom of the press, and say they they do not want to constrain software to IP laws. And yet, they also have one of the most viciously restrictive licenses in existance. Let's not argue about software leases or the rights of the user... the GPL is a straitjacket to that most important 1% of the computing community - the coders.
I will *never* release software under GPL - I don't trust it. Either I'm coding for profit or for the community, and I do not see how giving up the rights to your code helps either. If you want to be altruistic, do so. I've released plenty into public domain or copyrighted freeware (after giving up on the "shareware" concept), and I've sold/coded for profit. If I write a program, it is *mine* until I say it it yours (because you paid me), or I give it to everybody (I like public domain and freeware). That freedom, to do anything you want with your own creation, is what the GPL removes.
The GPL removes my freedom as an author to choose the terms of distribution and/or publication of my code. Once you've chosen the GPL path, it cannot be backtraced, while paths exist that provide the same results without the restrictions that the GPL forces you into.
The GPL makes it easy for users and middle men. "It has GPL" now equals "it can be burned onto a CD and sold". The Qt license was despised merely because it wasn't GPL, and people actually had to *READ* the thing to figure out their rights. If it was GPL, the users could have gone on their merry way without having to think about what they were running.
--
Evan "The JabberWokky" E.
Makes me wonder.... (Score:3)
Seriously, "GNU/Linux" will just never catch on. People are always going to call it "Linux". It's a linguistic thing.
But it would be nice if distributors started giving "GNU tools" better visibility on the boxes and on their web sites.
Free beer (Score:3)
both MIT and the AI Lab have received massive subsidies from the US Government over the years, particularly the DoD. So, much of that "free" (as in "free beer") software really was paid for by the US taxpayer.
Isn't that all the more reason why the software, once it's written, should be freely distributed - at the very least within the US?
If taxpayers money is used by the DOD to make some ultra-safe encryption algo or whatever then shouldn't the tax-payers get access to that code? Reguardless of whether or not the money should have been used in the first place surely everyone would agree that it's better to use the stuff once it's payed for than lock it up where nobody can get at it.
A private company or indeed an individual has every right to make propriatory code, but does a government have the right to lock the fruits of taxpayers contributions away from the taxpayers themselves? I wonder if governments should be allowed to write ANY non-free, secret software at all, let alone impose restrictions on other people's code (EG exporting it).
Priestess....