The Stallman Factor

An anonymous reader sent us linkage to a LinuxWorld story about Stallman's Position in the Linux World. Talks a lot about RMS's tacticts for getting his acronym included with the kernel's name. This has been a long-running debate, but personally I just don't care. I respect the GNU Project's involvement. But I'm not gonna spit out extra syllables and keystrokes just to appease anyone.

Re:his home page..

[joeldg]

http://www.stallman.org didn't let me post the url last time..??? slashcode being strange or something?

Re:Linux is a kernel

[mccalli]

GNU/Redhat, GNU/Mandrake, GNU/Debian, etc. are operating systems.

Well now, since we're being pedantic I would point out that:

• Linux is a kernel
• GNU is a set of programs and libraries
• GNU/Linux is the closest to most people's definition of 'operating system', ie. kernel + libraries + tools
• Redhat, Mandrake, Debian et. al. are distributions of the GNU/Linux operating systems.

And....I don't care. I call the whole lot Linux, unless I'm referring to particular features of distributions in which case it gets called Redhat, Debian or (in my case) Cobalt.

Cheers,
Ian

Re:Linux is a kernel

[gorilla]

KDE_or_GNOME/Xfree/GNU/Linux probably meets more people's definition of "operating system', as a bare console wouldn't be recognizable or terribly useful to the majority of people. You'd want a printing system too, CUPS/KDE_or_GNOME/XFree/GNU/Linux. How long do you extend it as useful packages get added to a distribution?

Clarification about FSF

[bkuhn]

This article misrepresents some of RMS' personal positions as positions of FSF as a whole. It is indeed correct that RMS will not speak to groups that call the whole GNU/Linux operating system by the name of "Linux" [gnu.org].

However, this is RMS' personal requirement when accepting a speaking engagement. Actually, other FSF speakers often speak to groups that call themselves "Linux" groups. We ask only that the advertising and press material about our particular speech call the system, GNU/Linux.

Of course, when I and other FSF speakers make a speech, one of the items on our agenda is to ask such groups, as a favor to the GNU project, to change their name and/or documents to say "GNU/Linux" consistently. While it is RMS' personal demand that the name change occur as a term to accept the engagement, the FSF does not, as an organization, demand such name changes. We simply request them.

Comparing it to Microsoft's tactics is out of proportion. FSF firmly stands for free speech rights. We assert your right to call the operating system anything you like; we request as a favor that you call it GNU/Linux.

RMS is a highly sought-after speaker. As it turns out, since he is not (nor never has been) paid a salary by the FSF, he collects speaker fees to help pay for his living expenses. As with any speaker, it's his prerogative to set the terms of his speaking engagements. Indeed, every speaker has his or her own set of requirements. (AAMOF, ESR's are available online [tuxedo.org].) Personally, I have a rule that there must be vegetarian restaurants that someone can take me to in the towns I visit. Of course, FSF doesn't take a position on vegetarianism, but it's a personal need of mine that I can't ignore---even when I am speaking on behalf of FSF.

While RMS won't come to speak for your group if it's called a "Linux" group, I'd be happy to come, as would many of the other FSF speakers [gnu.org]. While I am there, I am, of course, going to ask you to change the name of the group. But, please note the key point here: just because RMS sets a personal rule doesn't mean it is ipso facto FSF policy.

I think that point gets to the center of the problem with Barr's article. It seems to suggest that every position that RMS takes is automatically FSF policy. Of course, as our president and founder, many of RMS' personal positions match FSF policy exactly. But, most of them don't; RMS' personal website [stallman.org] is full of personal positions that aren't FSF policy.

Bradley M. Kuhn [mailto], Executive Director of the FSF

P.S. Finally, there is a factual error in the article. the GPL is the "General Public License". The G stands for General, not GNU. I usually say "GNU GPL" to make that clear.

Re:Lose the Gnu!

[kalidasa]

Emacs is just a nightmare

A nightmare for some . . . a dream for others!

Sorry, couldn't help it (gratuitous Excalibur reference).

Seriously, some of us LIKE emacs.

Extra redundant

[dmaxwell]

The g in gcc DOES stand for GNU. The C compiler on old school Unices is called cc for C Compiler sensibly enough.

Say I wonder if that isn't the answer to the GNU/Linux bickering: glinux!

Re:One of the few...

[captaincucumber]

the word was "ambivalent" not "indifferent"

ambivalent (adj): characterized by a mixture of opposite feelings or attitudes

indifferent (adj): Having no particular interest or concern; apathetic

just trying to be helpful.

Re:GNU was carried along by a larger wave/revoluti

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, free software existed before GNU.

But free software was dying when GNU came along, and RMS was one of the few who refused to accept that. The PDP and ITS were dead; UNIX et al. were dominant. BSD was around, but not yet free. Stallman found that software was moving away from open development, and into binary-only form, with all sorts of lawyerly conduct.

So he founded The GNU Project, to write a free operating sytem, which didn't exist at the time.

Read his 1983 Usenet announcement [gnu.org], or any number of the documents on gnu.org explaining why GNU was founded.