[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Pan-users] Re: OT: GNU/Linux Was: clearing headers?
From: |
Chris Metzler |
Subject: |
Re: [Pan-users] Re: OT: GNU/Linux Was: clearing headers? |
Date: |
Thu, 9 Oct 2008 22:51:52 -0400 |
On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 08:28:46 -0500
David Kelly wrote:
>
> I agree. Its akin to demanding Pan be known as GNU/Pan because its built
> with gcc and family. Neither RSF nor his FSF created Linux. GNU tools
> helped, but so did many other sources. Demanding this level of credit
> for Linux is an excellent example of the not-free nature of FSF/GNU
> software.
There are two different things wrong with this post.
The first is a logical error: "demanding this level of credit for Linux"
is *in no way* an example of anything at all about the nature of FSF/GNU
software. What it *is* an example of is of the opinions of some (almost
certainly most) of the FSF/GNU software developers. It would only be an
example of the "not-free nature" of their software if the software
licensing had terms that required the whole "GNU/Linux" thing. Since it
doesn't, it bears on the nature of the software not at all.
The second is a factual error: by suggesting their position is silly
because the GNU tools are only one of many important factors in the
development of Linux, you somewhat misrepresent their position. Their
position is that Linux distributions should be referred to as "GNU/Linux"
not simply because of the role the GNU software suite plays in the
development of the Linux kernel and other accompanying software, but
primarily because in their opinion the GNU software suite comprises
as significant a component of the operating system as its kernel. From
their perspective, there was a GNU operating system that was complete
in every way except for a kernel, and Linus attached a kernel to it.
I don't agree with that point of view; but if you're going to criticize
their position, it's important to get their position straight.
-c
P.S. Oh, and there's also the fact that his initials are RMS, and not
RSF, as you've written; but that was probably just a typo.
--
Chris Metzler address@hidden
(remove "snip-me." to email)
"As a child I understood how to give; I have forgotten this grace since I
have become civilized." - Chief Luther Standing Bear
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
- Re: [Pan-users] Re: clearing headers?, (continued)
- Re: [Pan-users] Re: clearing headers?, Steven D'Aprano, 2008/10/07
- [Pan-users] Re: clearing headers?, Yavor Doganov, 2008/10/08
- [Pan-users] OT: GNU/Linux Was: clearing headers?, Duncan, 2008/10/08
- [Pan-users] Re: OT: GNU/Linux Was: clearing headers?, Yavor Doganov, 2008/10/09
- [Pan-users] Re: OT: GNU/Linux Was: clearing headers?, Duncan, 2008/10/09
- Re: [Pan-users] Re: OT: GNU/Linux Was: clearing headers?, David Kelly, 2008/10/09
- [Pan-users] Re: OT: GNU/Linux Was: clearing headers?, Duncan, 2008/10/09
- [Pan-users] Re: OT: GNU/Linux Was: clearing headers?, Greg Lee, 2008/10/10
- [Pan-users] Re: OT: GNU/Linux Was: clearing headers?, Duncan, 2008/10/10
- Re: [Pan-users] Re: OT: GNU/Linux Was: clearing headers?, Joe Zeff, 2008/10/09
- Re: [Pan-users] Re: OT: GNU/Linux Was: clearing headers?,
Chris Metzler <=
- [Pan-users] Re: OT: GNU/Linux Was: clearing headers?, Yavor Doganov, 2008/10/10
- [Pan-users] Re: OT: GNU/Linux Was: clearing headers?, Duncan, 2008/10/10
- Re: [Pan-users] Re: OT: GNU/Linux Was: clearing headers?, Rob, 2008/10/10
- Re: [Pan-users] Re: OT: GNU/Linux Was: clearing headers?, Rob, 2008/10/10
- Re: [Pan-users] Re: OT: GNU/Linux Was: clearing headers?, Joe Zeff, 2008/10/10
- [Pan-users] Re: OT: GNU/Linux Was: clearing headers?, Greg Lee, 2008/10/10
- Re: [Pan-users] Re: OT: GNU/Linux Was: clearing headers?, Joe Zeff, 2008/10/10
- [Pan-users] Re: OT: GNU/Linux Was: clearing headers?, Duncan, 2008/10/10
- [Pan-users] Re: OT: GNU/Linux Was: clearing headers?, Greg Lee, 2008/10/10
- [Pan-users] Re: OT: GNU/Linux Was: clearing headers?, Duncan, 2008/10/10