Feature:Free Linux 630
Free Linux! Support the Demon Penguin.
The Demon Penguin, first seen on a T-shirt at the Linux World conference, is the mascot of the movement to create a an FSF-free Linux by replacing all FSF-owned software in Linux distributions with replacement programs from the BSD distributions.
The Linux kernel, while GPL'd, is certainly not to be replaced, nor is anything else that was *not* written directly by the FSF, whether it's GPL'd or not. As for the compiler, perhaps egcs is a better technical solution. A mere GPL does not GNUware make. Only software that the FSF claims is theirs should be replaced.
The point is *not* that we do not like the FSF's software, or that we do not like the GPL -- well, at least not all of us. Rather, it's because we cannot abide anyone usurping responsibility for the intellectual works of others. In the case of the FSF, such an inconsistent act is oxymoronic at best, and hypocritical at worst.
Let's use real data, not the hyperbolic rhetoric so common to the FSF. Here's a code analysis of a SuSE installation. Note that FSF ownership does not even quite reach 10%, yet rms and his followers would have it called "GNU/Linux". Their claim has no honest justification. Witness the numbers, and judge for yourself: http://www.vipul.net/codd/suse5.2.R.html
Code Contribution Distribution for S.u.S.E. 5.2
Package Name: suse5.2.coddPackage Size: +514659722 bytes.
- uncredited: 82733250 (16.075%)
- free software foundation, inc: 51254116 (9.958%)
- sun microsystems, inc: 38243234 (7.43%)
- the regents of the university of california: 23581801 (4.582%)
- x consortium: 18163125 (3.529%)
- thomas g. lane: 8464917 (1.644%)
- the university of washington: 7832780 (1.521%)
- digital equipment corporation: 7206660 (1.4%)
- snns group, ipvr, univ: 4366722 (0.848%)
- aladdin enterprises: 4108079 (0.798%)
- silicon graphics, inc: 3680070 (0.715%)
- robert nation: 2465545 (0.479%)
- maorong zou: 2438025 (0.473%)
Even if it is 10%, that's not enough to rename Linux to the repugnant "GNU/Linux". And it's not 10%. On a fully loaded server system, it's much less. Attached you will find an `ls` of /usr/man/man1 and /usr/man/man8 from a well-loaded RedHat Linux server system. Let the FSF indicate which commands were written by the FSF themselves, so that their claim of GNU/Linux might have some legitimacy. Until the FSF can prove actual authorship for > 50% of these, they have no business with this deceptive "GNU/Linux" moniker.
Let us give credit where it is due: to all those hundreds and hundreds of selfless volunteers all over the world who have made all Linux what it is today. The bogus term "GNU/Linux" confuses the public about what free operating systems like Linux and BSD are all about, and, perhaps more dangerous to us in the long run, dishonors the innumerable contributors by ignoring their massive efforts.
So please, everyone: let Linux remain Linux, nothing more -- but nothing less! When rms and his minions abandon this misguided and deceptive battle, we too can relent, but until then, support the Demon Penguin!
Adjectives (Score:1)
"scummy"
"repugnant"
Methinks the adjectives chosen say more about their authors than they say about the moniker "GNU/Linux" itself.
uncreditux? (Score:1)
A
Nice
Kernel
That'll make a nice acronym....
bsd - not what I'm talking about (Score:1)
If you want a useful system with no GNU software, you _have_ to replace all these.
---
Not all userspace is equal... (Score:1)
---
Teenaged tantrums. (Score:1)
Also, the FSF has willingly adopted non-FSF packages for the GNU system. This includes BSD and X code.
---
Revisionism? (Score:1)
---
No inconsistency (Score:1)
If the legal system didn't allow people to copyright ideas, this would not be an issue.
---
GNU software != Software written by FSF (Score:1)
---
WTF? (Score:1)
Read before you post. Unless you're such a deep thinker that you have a priori knowledge of what other people have posted.
---
Bad statistics (Score:1)
-Brett.
Couple of issues (Score:1)
1) FSF is the largest single contributer of code to Linux. Why must they represent over half the code before they get credit? If they did have over 50%, I'd think it would be more 'fair' to drop Linux and just call it GNU.
2) The number of lines of code does not reflect the actual value of the code. Specifically, things like gcc are worth far more than its LOC value since it begets almost all the other code. Besides, I thought a good programmer was one that did much with few lines of code. This chart _could_ mean that the FSF represents 70% of the core functionality with only 10% of the code.
3) The whole purpose of the FSF is to help the community and is thus a very altruistic organization. Now oddly enough, this group of people has a human as their leader and even more strange is that this human appears to be less than perfect. I can understand not being completly enamoured with the FSF's leader but does that really force us to actively attack the organization he happens to run? Why are we trying to snub a group of people who are trying to help?
4) There are no compeling technical reasons for replacing all the work that the FSF has contributed to Linux. Their code is, above all, free code. Also of importance, I find a great deal of their code to be valuable. Now, if I have complete control of my own code (they gave it to me) and no one can take that right from me, it makes no sense for me to rewrite it from scratch. Instead, when I've got a problem, It would be much more effective for me to work with the existing code. Of couse this obvious as it is the foundation of Open Source software. But what this does mean is that Demon Linux is a purely political movement not based on reason but emotions.
One more time (Score:1)
Linux is GPLed because Linus wanted to contribute back to the community. Get it? Both RMS and Linus are part of the SAME community so they solved a problem together that they could not have solved apart. This IS the goal RMS was striving for. We, the people, help each other out. The whole beauty of this is that RMS didn't have to personally organize and code a Unix kernel by himself.
Just because Linus' kernel was picked over the Hurd doesn't mean that we somehow cleverly defeated RMS and kept him from world dominiation. We helped him gain the world! And, in the process, we helped ourselves.
Indeed (Score:1)
GNU/Linux was pretty scummy, and its quite obvious
from all the argument over it that it's certainly
not very catchy. Credit where credit is due is
one thing, but credits in the product's name is
another.
Tom Christianson is Not a Nice Guy (Score:1)
Based on his postings, I would say he is a person with a lot of hatred towards Richard Stallman, the FSF, the GPL, anything "GNU". I highly suggest that you read up on his history before supporting anything that Tom Christiansen does. You want want to help him anyway, but you should at least understand where he is coming from first.
Tom Christianson is Not a Nice Guy (Score:1)
So (Score:1)
Tom Christianson is Not a Nice Guy (Score:1)
GCC (Score:1)
Write your own compiler? That seems a bit much to do merely to spite the FSF.
Argument is completely bogus (Score:1)
Since the FSF is the single largest author of the OS, it makes sense to call it the GNU OS. In fact, it is the same GNU OS that the FSF has been working on for quite a few years now, except that the still-not-finished HURD kernel was replaced by the Linux kernel. As such, it's the GNU OS with the Linux kernel, or GNU/Linux for short. If anything should be dropped, it should be the "Linux" portion, since that's just a temporary replacement until HURD is done, not GNU, which is the OS that is here to stay.
Tom Christianson _is_ a Nice Guy (Score:1)
That means, the GPL license PREVENTS you from doing as you wish with your code. That means, the GNU GPL does not promote freedom, because it restricts people's actions - namely in the act of releasing code under a different license.
Actually, that's incorrect. You can release your own code under the BSD license, even if you have previously released it under the GPL. You are free to do whatever you want with your code, including releasing it in separate instances under different licenses, even mutually incompatible ones. The GPL does not prevent you from re-releasing your code, documentation, or anything else, at a later time under whatever license you wish (even a non-Free Software one).
If GNU doesn't deserve to be named... (Score:1)
Very good post there... (Score:1)
Sorta right (Score:1)
The question of where the OS ends and the applications begin is a tricky one. Just ask Microsoft and the Department of Justice, which are currently squabbling over exactly that question
-- Eric
Linux without GNU may not be free (Score:1)
This "Free Linux" idea, purveyed by this Tom Slick guy, sounds like a commercial ploy to me. It may be one of those attacks on the freeness of Linux and any other GNUly appointed system. After all, Linux is already free!
The FSF or Free Software Foundation is basically THE FREE SOFTWARE FOUNDATION of Linux; take away the foundation and the building discorporates.
Stallman is interested in Linux remaining free (see FSF definition of free). The GPL is the protection afforded to free software against being coopted by non-free (proprietary) entities. Stallman is sometimes referred to as the prophet. Ok, so maybe he acts like one sometimes. He has a vision and wants to make sure it doesn't get lost in growing commercialization of Linux. You may not like what the so called prophet has to say but it's got to be said.
GNU/Linux as a name? I could care less. It doesn't matter much to me as long as it remains free - truly free.
_Bundled_ software... (Score:1)
It _is_ rather a good question -- how much of the bundled tools are actually part of the OS? After all, Unix relies heavily on non-kernel stuff to make it what it is...
Hell, if it ain't kernel, it's userspace -- and of all the bundled userspace stuff, most of it's not from GNU.
Not all userspace is equal... (Score:1)
If I removed ls, cp, mv, rm, ln, bash and the like and put a new GUI with no shell on top, would it still be linux, or would it be My/Linux?
I'd still think of it as linux, just with some very different stuff on top.
Oh get real! (Score:1)
They're not calling it GNU/Linux because it was produced by the FSF. They are calling it that because much of the software is released under the GNU Public License.
In any case, it makes no sense to ask "who created this tool" because the point is that EVERYONE can contribute to existing code.
It would be a lot less misleading to partition by license rather than original programmer. If you do that I believe you will find much justification for calling it GNU/Linux.
The stats don't support his argument. (Score:1)
The FSF is the single largest contributing organization in that S.u.S.E. distribution, according to his numbers. And let's not forget which compiler and binutils generated the code that makes up the remaining 90%. EGCS? I don't think so.
Have fun rewriting GCC, binutils, emacs and all the rest, boys. It's sure a lot easier than thinking of something original, isn't it? Oh, and lest you think I'm some huge RMS fan, I'm not. He's goofy and he makes us all look like dorks by association. Still, I won't begrudge the man his props...
FSF DOES get credit (without using "GNU/Linux") (Score:1)
Whenever I use gcc or gdb, or gmake or countless other important apps in linux, I know that the FSF is behind them. Its right there in the name. I appreciate what they have done, and I wouldn't want to have to rewrite their code.
I think that they are getting plenty of credit, and they don't need any more.
Whenever you use linux, you are using the kernel, which Linus wrote, and so it should remain named linux.
The name stays as "linux", and we leave in the FSF code.
mrcl
B-O-R-I-N-G. (Score:1)
>This rant is just stupid.
Agreed. B-O-R-I-N-G.
RMS is controversial. You agree with his point of view or not. All of these "discussions" about GNU/Linux vs Linux are the same thing over and over again. I will never be resolved.
It is one thing for informed people to disagree. But I read replies from people who obviously don't know anything of the history of free software/open source.
That's all. Back to work!
What do you think "GPL" means? (Score:1)
Duh
GNUX, GNURD, etc. and beyond (Score:1)
How about:
Gnulix -- gah-new-licks
or
Gnulinux -- gah-NEW-lin-ucks
I think either one would be pretty rockin'
Or you could go the other way with
Lingnu -- Lin-gah-new
or
Linignu -- Lin-eh-gah-new
or even
Linugnux -- Lin-ah-gah-nucks
You're A Freakin' Perry Mason, eh Tom? (Score:1)
>> And it's not 10%
Gosh, you're right.
It's 9.958% on that link you gave us.
Good point, Tom. That's not 10%.
You nailed that one, boy.
I can't imagine how FSF can have any comeback to that one.
-----------------------------
Computers are useless. They can only give answers.
You're A Freakin' Perry Mason, eh Tom? (Score:1)
Me fragment the community? Am I the one posting nonsense like:
9.958% is not 10%
No. Look in the mirror, pal . .
Oh, wait, you're an AC. Guess you don't have a face, eh?
In any event, Tom's little missive actually convinced me to give RMS' arguments another look. Tom was so absurd, so prone to hair splitting that I actually think RMS has a point now.
Oh, one last gob of spit in your face. If you don't want to use an OS because of its name (witness ol' Tommy, ever the fount of reason: "rename Linux to the repugnant 'GNU/Linux'"), then, well, you got real problems.
-----------------------------
Computers are useless. They can only give answers.
Just plain Linux (Score:1)
RMS himself has claimed in a recent interview that about 30% of the code in a basic Linux distribution is from the FSF (although he may have meant that it's under the GPL; one problem in this discussion is that the distinction is not always clear). 30% may be a plurality, sure, but it would have nothing to run on if it weren't for the kernel -- and the kernel couldn't be built without gcc.
So? Linux is obviously a complex product and the distro people deserve whatever money and egoboo they make. FSF software is a central part of any distro. That doesn't mean we're all morally obligated to do whatever RMS says -- or indeed to pay any attention to him at all -- but on the other hand RMS has earned the right to try to make his case for the moral necessity of the GPL -- which he is doing, and taking advantage of the sudden industry interest in Linux to evangelize as much as possible.
Our movement -- and I don't care what you call it, we all know what it is -- includes revivalist RMS, PR specialist ESR, politician BP, executives at Red Hat, SuSE, Caldera, and VA, and thousands of hackers and hundreds of thousands of testers, advocates, and kibitzers. That's just the way it is; millions of people doing their own thing on Planet Linux for their own reasons, and none of us has the authority to exile anybody else from the movement.
I personally think this effort -- to replace FSF software purely out of spite, or out of disgust with the press attention paid to RMS, or out of fear that clueless business executives may shy away from Linux because of RMS' mystical advocacy of his particular brand of freedom (or the misunderstanding of the GPL apparent in the rantings of some of its more immature supporters, whose mouths are substantially bigger than their brains) -- this effort is fundamentally misguided.
We're not about "reading anybody out" of the movement. (Some people, like Bruce Perens, periodically read themselves out, then back in again. That's their privilege.) We're about producing high-quality software with a completely open and cooperative development model. If we don't do that, we might as well spend our time and resources collecting baseball cards or playing golf.
So instead of reinventing the FSF's wheel, let's go on to making GNOME reliable, getting KDE 2 out the door, expanding The Gimp's capabilities, bulletproofing our NFS routines, writing USB drivers, perfecting LessTif and WINE, or other things that need doing. Wasting development time just because we're ticked off at what someone says is silly, bordering on the childish. We're supposed to be grownups.
Craig [airnet.net]
BSD/X/etc. thought harmful ... (Score:1)
One point that I don't understand about the whole license debate -- GPL vs the freer BSD/X/Artistic etc. -- is that GPL people keep repeating this sort of thing as though they have lost something they were entitled to if somebody takes the available source, makes some secret improvements, and makes money selling it -- which is prohibited by the GPL but allowed (one way or another) by most of the others.
If you have some freely-available source, and so does somebody else, and that somebody else makes changes to it without giving them to you, what precisely have you lost? Can you no longer make the same use of the source you always could? What exactly have they deprived you of? How have they "torn apart" the program?
And if this could happen so easily and inevitably, why is all the FreeBSD stuff still doing so well?
Craig
Unrecognized/Linux (Score:1)
Of course the One True Name is... GNULIX!
;-)
I got yer demon penguin right here! (Score:1)
Bickering children (Score:1)
Cast off the shoes! Follow the gourd! (Score:1)
Bzzt! (back atcha) (Score:1)
typo alert (Score:1)
Yes! (Score:1)
Tux it is... (Score:1)
Oh brother... (Score:1)
[ANNOUNCEMENT] English Purity Project (Score:1)
GPL & money (Score:1)
I agree there with you there, but what you're saying is only trivially true insofar as there's no such thing as a one-size-fits-all license. All you are saying is that there are some problem-domains where the GPL would be a poor choice of licenses. That's a far cry from Brett's claim.
A license is just a tool. You're saying that a hammer isn't very useful when you need to drive a screw. Brett may grok this, but he's obviously holding a grudge against the hammer anyway.
Ok, this is plain stupid... (Score:1)
One of the GOOD things about Linux is that, even though there are lots of distributions, there is a lot of commonality in the toolsets people use. If common utilities start behaving differently on different distributions then the FUD mongers will suddenly be right about splintering and infighting.
Grow up.
It's about respect (Score:1)
Those names clarify a variant, they don't (intend to) claim credit for the whole thing.
>If people want to call it GNU/Linux then let them.
That is not the issue. It's people getting on my case if *I* don't.
Isn't SUSE the bloated distro? (Score:1)
"The retail version of SuSE 6.0 comes with enough software on the included five-CD set that even those of you with cable modems will feel lucky."
Since the kernel and GNU utilities are the same size no matter how much extra crap is thrown in, won't their percentage go down as bloat goes up? 300 Meg is ~9% of five CD's, while 45% of one CD (like Redhat). And I'm sure a lot of that "uncredited author" code that's #1 is the crap that SUSE throws in on the 4th or 5th CD's.
While I agree that GNU/Linux is a crappy name, I have real problems with this methodology of proving it.
Totally agreed (Score:1)
Agreed, agreed, and agreed again. If RMS' numbers lie, Tom's are no more honest. I mean, seriously -- GCC. Compiler technology is some of the most difficult stuff in computer science, and the free software movement is built (literally) wiht GCC. Good luck, Tom, and shut up until you have TCC for us, and Temacs as well.
Please do tell us -- what is your gripe with RMS? So he wants credit for his vision and his excellent work. I'm more than happy to give it to him.
If GNU doesn't deserve to be named... (Score:1)
That is still the wrong question. Could Linux have reached critical mass without Intel CPUs? Since Linus wrote the first version on an Intel chip should we call it Intel/Linux?
How about ING/Linux (ING = ING's not GNU)?
The real question is -- why change the name when it already had a name?
Yep theres Linus (Score:1)
The answer to this is simple. I'll come up with my LYING distribution
(Linux, Yes, Isn't Named GNU)
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
Apple, IBM and Sun, but no AOL (Score:1)
#2 Sun Microsystems 7.43% (and a little tiny bit mislabeled as Sun Microsystem)
#587 Apple Computer 0.017% (curious)
#2270 Microsoft Corporation 0.001% (Thanks Uncle Bill)
#3483 IBM 0.001% (what about the Apache/NT patch?)
nothing from AOL, but there is a rather large personal contribution from an AOL address.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^
726. linus torvalds: 62204 (0.012%) (Score:1)
And I think you are right, they don't fear Linux as much as they fear the GPL's hungry nature. Linus's origional copyright wasn't GPL but he changed it to GPL becuase "it worked better" whatever that means.
I like the GPL, it is enough of a marker. I'd hate to have to name every application I release under the GPL as GNU/Nosepicker, etc...
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~
RMS != Freedom (Score:1)
But I'll agree with it. The GPL would not be able to protect my code if it allowed others freedom to use of it or allowed me freedom to use anothers GPLed code. But it does protect it, in some very strange public limbo where alls fair as long as it stays in that state (of GPL). The GPL may not be freedom but it is fair! And that is more than any other Liscence out there.
The GPL is in itself an owner of the code, not the writer or the person who adds to it. But at least it is free as in it won't ever *have* to cost you money. And it is free speach. But it is not freedom.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^
Yikes (Score:1)
I searched for a few names I knew and didn't pull up anything.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~
10% code, but more than 10% motivation ? Yes! (Score:1)
More to the point, though, the FSF provided the real impetus behind the free (speech, as opposed to beer) software movement, and devised the framework (GPL) in which free software could be created and be guaranteed to remain free. Whether someone else would have had the same insight is anyone's guess, but it's certainly not obvious that that would have happened. This, to me, is more important than any piece of software, other than gcc, libc, and to a lesser extent emacs.
Finally, the Demon Penguin gang really shouldn't talk about using egcs if their intent is to produce an FSF-free Linux distribution. egcs is quite directly based on gcc, even if it has diverged. The egcs team quite openly acknowledges that fact through the name (Experimental GNU Compiler Suite).
GNU/Linux may be an awkward name, and names may not always be fair, and Richard Stallman may be very annoying, but that does not make his point invalid. Eric Raymond, who is no particular friend of the FSF's position (he's generally regarded as a, if not the, leader in what I refer to as the "pragmatic" camp of the free source movement), took pains to acknowledge that fact at Linux World.
bsd (Score:1)
perhaps RMS should start his own distribution? (Score:1)
Why doesn't Stallman release his own distro (with only FSF software) and call it Official GNU/Linux (tm)?
Let the marketplace decide the preferred distro/name.
It's what RMS was using, that's why. (Score:1)
Maybe so, but it's still statistically wrong. (Score:1)
He made the comments about a single install from a single distribution with a specific set of options. Probably had the box setup as a programming box.
Things that I like ... (Score:1)
That Richard Stallman doesn't like:
KDE
O'Reilly Books
Tom Christiansen
That Tom Christiansen doesn't like:
GNU/Linux
GPLed Documentation
Richard Stallman
But I can like all of these things, and so can you
Mike Greaves
X Consortium stuff should be counted, too (Score:1)
--
W.A.S.T.E.
Daemon Penguin? (Score:1)
Totally agreed (Score:1)
Seriously, Tom---what's your gripe with the FSF? RMS wants his ego stroked, he wants people to appreciate his contributions. If no one ever told Linus "thanks" and "good job", he may have stopped working on the kernel long ago.
ESR points out in the good ol' C&B paper that ego is a big part of free software development. RMS wants a piece of that, he wants appreciation.
I, for one, greatly appreciate RMS's contributions, and I recognize them. I still don't call it GNU/Linux, my habits are otherwise, but when I explain Linux to someone, I explain how the FSF contributed greatly with all of the classic UNIX utilities (sed, awk, grep, etc.) as well as a pretty darn good C/C++ compiler, debugger, and GNU make.
I think it'll take Tom quite a while to write all of that himself. We can have Tom/Linux with Tom CC, tdb (Tom's debugger), and Tom Make. Have fun, Tom, come back in ten years when you've finished those and we'll see what else you can waste your time on.
What's wrong with GNU/Linux? (Score:1)
No, we want to call it Linux. You know the name of the kernel. You never see "Sun Microsystems/Solaris", or "AT&T/Unix", or "IBM/OS/2" There is no reason to recognize a software contributor in the name of the OS, if you're going to do that you might as well call it "GNU/Linus Torvalds/Sun Microsystems/University of California/Washington University/Donald Becker/Alan Cox/AT&T/Aladdin Enterprises/X Consortiom/XFree/Red Hat Labs/Cygnus/I'm sorry about people I forgot/Linux." That's rediculous. I have no problem with "RedHat Linux" or "SuSE Linux" because when you get down to it they decided what goes in the OS, they created the OS, they can call it whatever the heck they want. Debian can call it "GNU/Linux" if they want, but FSF should expect me to.
One zealot attacking another (Score:1)
is when we have, eg,
awk.pl
ls.pl
all the way up to
emacs.pl
gcc.pl
gdb.pl
xf86_svga.pl
and, of course,
linux.pl
But seriously, haven't we got enough *real*
problems to solve?
10% code, but more than 10% motivation ? (Score:1)
I think the FSF would reply that they started the whole idea, and kept it going during the long dark times of the 80's.
It's probably fair to say that if the FSF had never written a line of code, Linux would not exist, whereas if one of the other contributers (except Linus, obviously) had not written their code, someone else would have filled their place.
Of course that's not to say that those 'other' coders have contributed less to the body of code. It's simply a comment on how the Open Source tradition has been built, and who laid the foundations.
That said, I don't think the GNU/Linux thing makes any sense at all. The FSF should be credited, but not like that.
Also, while this GNU/Linux thing is indeed a very public and a very petty squabble, I think RMS and the FSF are going to be an increasingly important counterweight to what is happening with ESR et al. at the other end of the scale.
I see RMS as a constant against which measurements can be made
n lines of gcc is greater than n lines of utils (Score:1)
The point is that the FSF built foundations. Writing a C compiler is hard. Lots of people who later wrote free code in C would not have done so if GCC hadn't been available. Also, if the FSF hadn't written GCC, I don't think anyone else would have done. It's a massive task that requires deep committment and competence. If zlib didn't exist someone would get fed up and write it. If gcc didn't exist, people would have bought more proprietary compilers.
bsd - not what I'm talking about (Score:1)
Anyway, last I checked *BSD systems use gcc. So, BSD did not create a C compiler. Also, the roots of BSD are in an academic organisation that paid people nice yearly salaries to work on code full time.
The fact remains that the kind of people who churn out jolly jelpful things like majordomo and xv and so forth are simply not in the same business as the people who created gcc.
And, many (most?) of those that created jolly helpful things like xv would not have been able to do so without gcc or another excellent 100% free c compiler.
Imagine if Perl was commercial. What would be the point in anyone creating Majordomo if you had to go out and buy Perl to run it? Instead, whoever wrote Majordomo would more likely have spent the money on a commercial listserver.
It is the fact that the _foundation_ software is free that has promoted the massive amount of software apps and utils built on those foundations. And it is the early, idealist groups like the FSF that built much of the foundations.
Tom Christianson _is_ a Nice Guy (Score:1)
Tom wanted a BSD/Artistic style license. FSF wants a GNU style license.
Tom objects to the viral nature of the GPL.
Tom's big objection was that if you GPL documentation, then you GPL code examples in that documentation. If those examples are GPL'd, then you can't use them if you want to release you work under, say, the BSD license.
That means, the GPL license PREVENTS you from doing as you wish with your code. That means, the GNU GPL does not promote freedom, because it restricts people's actions - namely in the act of releasing code under a different license.
It's not the only view point, but Tom is certainly not outrageous in his concerns.
It all becomes more interesting if you think of the GPL as applying to IDEAS within the documentation. Suppose the canonical Perl documentation is GPL's and it explains what a closure is in Perl. Does that mean you can't use closures unless you GPL the code with closures in?
This then becomes a debate on whether the GPL covers the _text_ (ASCII) of the documentation, or the sense of the documentation. At this point it becomes obvious to me that the GPL is not defined in such a way that it applies usefully to documentation.
With source code, the ASCII of the code is inextricably linked to the function the code performs. This is simply not true of documentation.
It's an important an interesting problem, that no one except Tom seemed to care about or understand, much.
Tom Christianson _is_ a Nice Guy (Score:1)
1. Still viral in nature (requires that derived documentation retains the same license)
2. Appears to have been designed on for documentation explaining the function and use of programs, which is not at all the same as documentation explaining, say, the finer points of socket programming in Perl.
So, the issue remains that:
1. The FSF has an unhealthy (in Tom's opion) fondness for viral licenses.
2. Neither the FSF nor anyone else is really thinking hard about copyright concerns for documentation that includes significant bodies of source code.
You say:
"Perhaps that is also why copyright covers expressions of ideas rather than ideas themselves."
However, I think you will find that the distinction between an idea and its expression is so subtle, complex and disputed as to make your sentence (and, I dare say are large amount of copyright law) rather unhelpful.
And yes, clues are good things, but a miserable replacement for intelligence, and dare I say it, politeness?
good points (Score:1)
Those are good points, but I'm not sure the analogy is quite good...
"One who believes in free speech _ought not_ to speak in a way that hinders the free speech of others." That's OK, but what is NOT OK is:
"One who believes in free speech _ought not to be able to_ speak in a way that hinders the free speech of others."
Now, I think the GPL believes in the second statement. The first statement says that it is wrong (in a moral sense) to limit free speech of others. The GPL would go further an enforce that morality by making it impossible.
I think Tom objects to that imposition.
Intersting stuff tho...
BSD/Linux creates GNU/Linux (Score:1)
Tom
Hey, here's an idea: (Score:1)
If you want to use an OS called 'GNU/Linux', use Debian.
(If you want an OS with real package management, use Debian, too.)
FSF/Linux? (Score:1)
--
If GNU doesn't deserve to be named... (Score:1)
It's a matter of kernel code lines vs. fsf code lines -- not Linus's code vs. fsf code.
How to read a Tom Christiansen post (Score:1)
of perl5-porters was that if you didn't
strictly have to read a Tom Christiansen
post, it was often easier to ignore it and
save yourself the karmic hassle of feeling
dirty at the end of a mailreading session.
Tom's a moderately smart guy, but he's so full
of bile now, for whatever reason, that it's
no longer worth the effort.
The people on #perl are meanies! (Score:1)
You have not got it, sorry (Score:1)
If *I'd* made those comments, I'd want to take credit for them
--
If GNU/Linux is hogwash-- (Score:1)
Daniel
What's wrong with Linux? (Score:1)
Daniel
Oh, you mean GNU/FreeBSD? (Score:1)
Daniel
Fools (Score:1)
Daniel
Agreed but Bruce is misdirected himself. (Score:1)
IMO, saying that Linux system's are NOT GNU at the core is almost attempted theft.
Daniel
I've made my decision (Score:1)
Daniel
GNU is not Linux (Score:1)
Daniel
Heh. (Score:1)
-- Mark Twain
Daniel
Agreed but Bruce is misdirected himself. (Score:1)
How about purging (however your system does it) libc, ls, sh, and sed?
Daniel
I _strongly_ disagree with TC (Score:1)
Daniel
zugzwang (Score:1)
Daniel
GNU software != Software written by FSF (Score:1)
Daniel
Sounds about right (Score:1)
Hey Richard, comb your hair, take a shower, and get a life.
- Randy
Stallman's GPL is hurting programmers now. (Score:1)
(He also discusses the problem of competing against free software.)
What you fail to realize here is that if free software destroys proprietary software, it is because it is better. Period. You can't make it stop by complaining about losing your work; the lamp-oil manufacturers lost their jobs when gas became commonly used, and gas when elecrical lights became common.
You can NOT put the genie back in the bottle.
Deal with it.
How does one deal with it? A common answer is to go with the free software flow, but use a license that's less restrictive than the GPL. The LGPL works decently well; Perl's Artistic licence is good. The Open Source movement has prospered because of people who, I think, see this coming.
The GPL is bad, I believe, but not for any of the reasons you list. Rather, it's bad because it's hostile to perfectly good licenses.
-Billy
GNU != GPL (Score:1)
For some I wouldn't care, but for most, it's not more GNU software than it is extraterrestrial software (ie: not much).
BG: You want to destroy the movement (Score:1)
Come on. Behave with more honesty.
You are stupid. (Score:1)
Poor Marketing (Score:1)
Even more importantly, however, RMS gave us the GPL, which allows us to write software and give it away without fear of having our contributions hijacked. The GPL is one seriously cool hack, and for this contribution, perhaps more than anything, RMS should be thanked.
But the only thing worse for marketing than GNU/Linux would be if Linus's original name "Freax" would have stuck. RMS may not care about this, but some of us want to use Linux and still have a life.
The second Linux is ubiquitous I will be the first to praise Saint Ignucious as the saviour of all computerkind. I will even promise to use words like gnu-riffic and gnu-licious. In the meantime it's all about marketing, and GNU/Linux doesn't stand a chance.
So what DO we call it? (Score:1)
If we're going to try and give credit to all the uncredited contributions then I personally vote to rename the system to JRH OS.
for J. Random Hacker OS.
- The Rokhed