RMS and GNU/Linux (again)

[Derek Neighbors]

--=-WkTRsy8LqyiyyB6SOyII
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, 2003-02-17 at 10:35, Jeremy C. Reed wrote:
> > The argument is that most distributions of Linux are basically a Linux
> > kernel running amidst a GNU userland.  Nor would just any distribution
>=20
> Do you mean software from the FSF?

The only thing that can be GNU software.  Is software that is part of
the GNU project.  Albeit that is a lot of software. ;)

> Hosted on gnu.org servers or mirrors?

GNU hosts software that is not part of the GNU project so no.

> GNU licensed?

There are LOTS of pieces of software that are licensed under the GNU GPL
that are not part of the GNU project so no.  However, i think there is
something to be said attribution wise to those choosing the GPL.

> I have built a Linux OS from scratch (to be officially announced at
> LinuxFest Northwest). Last week, I gave a presentation for the Greater
> Seattle Linux User's Group about building a Linux operating system from
> source.

You can argue till your blue in the face there is Linux is an operating
system.  However there is only Linux a kernel.  Whether you want to bolt
other things onto that kernel and call it Foo or Linux or whatever is up
to you, but the only thing that is truly Linux is the kernel.  I think
even Linus would agree to that.

> A lot of the essential software for a Linux distro are not from the FSF
> nor GNU licensed. (When I have time, I may make a list of software which
> licenses.)

No one said there was not.  I would say the Linux kernel is pretty
essential and its not from the FSF. It is GPL though. :)

> Yes, all are built using GCC though. (I hope to soon to be able to use
> tendra to build all that code.)

You realize the current futilism of your argument.

"Oh yeah.  I can bake bread.  I dont need those stupid people.  I just
need their eggs, their yeast and their wheat.  They dont supply the oven
or the oven mitts though... I dont need them... Some day soon Im gonna
get my own eggs and yeast.. Then I can really tell them off.."

The sad truth is even if tomorrow no GNU tools or software was needed
for anything, there is a certain attribute of history to consider.=20
Would Linux be what is today without the GPL license, GCC and other GNU
tools?  Certainly we could debate it, but I think that the point is
fairly undeniable that the Free Software Foundation and the GNU Project
has had more than a minor significance in the rise of Free Software
usage and in particular GNU/Linux.

Of course, it is debatable whether one should call it GNU/Linux or just
Linux for many reasons.  I said in my earlier post, its not worth
debating that on this list.  People need to learn to agree to disagree.=20
However, spouting off that GNU had no part is misinformation and needs
to be dispelled. (imho)

--=20
Derek Neighbors
GNU Enterprise
http://www.gnuenterprise.org
derek@gnue.org

Was I helpful?  Let others know:
 http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=3Ddneighbo

--=-WkTRsy8LqyiyyB6SOyII
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQA+UTxPHb99+vQX/88RAhwsAJ9oQ/bWyM9HRbCbN2773joWB6SmBACfdkGb
epgTpwakjySxflx24NrJn3M=
=F2lV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=-WkTRsy8LqyiyyB6SOyII--