Discussion:
Linus on Linux and the GPLv3
(too old to reply)
Philip Tellis
2006-10-07 17:34:48 UTC
Permalink
http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/9/25/161

Interesting insights about licencing of the kernel.
Dinesh Shah
2006-10-08 09:19:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Philip Tellis
http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/9/25/161
Interesting insights about licencing of the kernel.
Indeed... The question is can software be used for activism? and even
bigger question is should it be used for activism?

With regards,
--
--Dinesh Shah :-)
Devdas Bhagat
2006-10-08 13:38:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dinesh Shah
Post by Philip Tellis
http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/9/25/161
Interesting insights about licencing of the kernel.
Indeed... The question is can software be used for activism? and even
bigger question is should it be used for activism?
It's called the Free Software Foundation.

Devdas Bhagat
Dinesh Shah
2006-10-08 16:04:26 UTC
Permalink
Hi!
Post by Devdas Bhagat
Post by Dinesh Shah
Indeed... The question is can software be used for activism? and even
bigger question is should it be used for activism?
It's called the Free Software Foundation.
I know. I had posed those couple of questions and seeking the opinions
of LUGers (GLUGers?). :-)

Getting those opinions are quite important and should lead to healthy
discussion.
Post by Devdas Bhagat
Devdas Bhagat
With regards,
--
--Dinesh Shah :-)
Nagarjuna G.
2006-10-08 16:50:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dinesh Shah
Hi!
Post by Devdas Bhagat
Post by Dinesh Shah
Indeed... The question is can software be used for activism? and even
bigger question is should it be used for activism?
It's called the Free Software Foundation.
I know. I had posed those couple of questions and seeking the opinions
of LUGers (GLUGers?). :-)
Getting those opinions are quite important and should lead to healthy
discussion.
Good UI or technology is not really scarse. What is scarse is
awareness that freedom of the users is important. Several of you are
spreading the use of Linux[sic] among your friends, families. That is
really good work. But when you did that you are spreading it as
technology, saying we can do this, as well as this, and without
viruses etc etc. This does work in a pragmatic society. Seeing this
strategy working we feel this is sufficient, but no. It is not
difficult for a proprietary vendor to adapt the power of a free
operating system and wrap it up with applications and devices embedded
with DRM (digital 'restrictions' management). E.g. Apple. What will
be your argument in support of Linux[sic] as against Apple? When
govt offices, schools and colleges all over the country are given free
copies of M$, what will be your argument in favour of Linux[sic]?

Technical problems can be solved not only by us, by them as well, it
is not difficult for M$ to fix virus problem if they want to. What
they have no interest in fixing is the user's freedom, for it effects
the degree of profits they can earn. As long as user's are not aware
of this they will continue to exploit user's ignorance and rule the
world.

The alternative is, along with the best technology, which we have,
Linux, Mozilla, Apache, Xorg, ... and last but not least GNU. The
last one is not just a technology, but a way of life. As long as you
dont add this technology embedded with activism, you will not have any
argument against the two possibilities I raised above. That is why if
we promote GNU we will have won our freedom. The name matters,
because of the philosophy associated with it. GNU is not just a
idealogy, it is indeed very practical, it is the indispensable
bedrock of the systems that we are using.

We have to make best technology that is free of proprietary encodings
and DRM embedded devices. Our systems will invite parasites if we
dont protect our software with GPLv3. It is a minor fix to take care
of the current vicious environment. I am sure we may need future
revisions to take care of the continuing struggle for software
freedom.

Nagarjuna
Philip Tellis
2006-10-08 17:13:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nagarjuna G.
awareness that freedom of the users is important. Several of you are
spreading the use of Linux[sic] among your friends, families. That is
really good work. But when you did that you are spreading it as
technology, saying we can do this, as well as this, and without
viruses etc etc. This does work in a pragmatic society. Seeing this
strategy working we feel this is sufficient, but no. It is not
difficult for a proprietary vendor to adapt the power of a free
Different people need convincing in different ways, and in order to
guarantee convincing, it is important that your first encounter not be
your last. Some people will understand immediately the importance of
freedom when explained properly, and will embrace it. Others will need
time to first let the new jargon settle in, and then think about other
aspects.

For this second group of people, it is important to have quick to
remember terms that can be memorised without effort. Once the terms are
no longer alien to them, additional qualities can be touched upon.
Dinesh Shah
2006-10-08 17:44:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Philip Tellis
Different people need convincing in different ways, and in order to
guarantee convincing, it is important that your first encounter not be
your last. Some people will understand immediately the importance of
freedom when explained properly, and will embrace it. Others will need
time to first let the new jargon settle in, and then think about other
aspects.
The set of people falling in second category is far larger then the 1st.
Post by Philip Tellis
For this second group of people, it is important to have quick to
remember terms that can be memorised without effort. Once the terms are
no longer alien to them, additional qualities can be touched upon.
True, these are those people who wants "their work done".

There are large number of businesses / developers / students who do
have this question - "If I give away my source code, how will I make
money".

Everyone needs their own reasons to move to FOSS. We have to just
present them with multiple advantages of FOSS - one of them and most
important is freedom - and let them make their own choices.

IMHO It will be fruitless and counter productive to force everyone to
choose ONLY freedom as an advantage.

With regards,
--
--Dinesh Shah :-)
Rony
2006-10-08 17:56:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dinesh Shah
There are large number of businesses / developers / students who do
have this question - "If I give away my source code, how will I make
money".
If I own a software company, how do I make money if my software is OSS
and anyone can compile the code and sell copies of the same without I
getting any share of it? Is too much freedom dangerous?

Regards,

Rony.




___________________________________________________________
All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of use." - PC Magazine
http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
mehul
2006-10-08 18:20:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rony
If I own a software company, how do I make money if my software is OSS
and anyone can compile the code and sell copies of the same without I
getting any share of it? Is too much freedom dangerous?
IMO, quality is your USP in this case, if you can provide quality people
will
be ready to pay it's price. Well those who want the software free of cost
will get it by hook or crook (read piracy). These people are out of
consideration. So, it won't matter if your software is Open Source or
proprietory when it comes to quality people will be ready to buy it. So,
Open Source should rather help as the code is open and can be trusted
by the customers.
Rony
2006-10-09 14:23:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by mehul
Post by Rony
If I own a software company, how do I make money if my software is OSS
and anyone can compile the code and sell copies of the same without I
getting any share of it? Is too much freedom dangerous?
IMO, quality is your USP in this case, if you can provide quality people
will
be ready to pay it's price. Well those who want the software free of cost
will get it by hook or crook (read piracy). These people are out of
consideration. So, it won't matter if your software is Open Source or
proprietory when it comes to quality people will be ready to buy it. So,
Open Source should rather help as the code is open and can be trusted
by the customers.
In GPL, anyone is free to use / distribute / resell / modify ->
redistribute the modified code or give everything away for free. Before
I explain my point, I want to distinguish between customized softwares
made for individual clients and general purpose softwares for everyone,
those that can be simply downloaded and used by anyone concerned.

In case of the former, one can charge any X amount from the client for
making a customized package.

But in the latter, suppose I make a CAD software thats very good and
works just like the popular closed CAD software. I post it on the net
under GPL and keep a price of some 100s of dollars. Now some smart alec
who is out to ruin my business compiles my code and even acknowledges my
good work and puts the package on the net for a free download. He is
doing a perfectly legal thing as the GPL allows this. So how do I run my
company when my work is available to others for free as in beer.

Regards,

Rony.





___________________________________________________________
All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of use." - PC Magazine
http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
Aseem Rane
2006-10-09 15:20:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rony
In GPL, anyone is free to use / distribute / resell / modify ->
redistribute the modified code or give everything away for free. Before
I explain my point, I want to distinguish between customized softwares
made for individual clients and general purpose softwares for everyone,
those that can be simply downloaded and used by anyone concerned.
In case of the former, one can charge any X amount from the client for
making a customized package.
I think this market is as big, if not bigger, as the general purpose one.
Indian IT companies for example have very less presence in the later one.
Feel free to correct me if you think otherwise.

But in the latter, suppose I make a CAD software thats very good and
Post by Rony
works just like the popular closed CAD software. I post it on the net
under GPL and keep a price of some 100s of dollars. Now some smart alec
who is out to ruin my business compiles my code and even acknowledges my
good work and puts the package on the net for a free download. He is
doing a perfectly legal thing as the GPL allows this. So how do I run my
company when my work is available to others for free as in beer.
You can always charge for supporting your software. I am sure you knew that
:p
Customize it on demand. You can opt for dual licensing if that suits your
business.
And you have advantages of bazar style of coding over the closed source
software.

And already some companies are doing that. Successfully till now.

Regards
Aseem
Rony
2006-10-09 15:50:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aseem Rane
You can always charge for supporting your software. I am sure you knew that
:p
Customize it on demand. You can opt for dual licensing if that suits your
business.
And you have advantages of bazar style of coding over the closed source
software.
And already some companies are doing that. Successfully till now.
So the bottom line is that FOSS cannot make money on sales. They can
only make money through service and customization. This happens only for
big customers. Thats why the home or small office customers remain
untouched by FOSS companies. Thats where commercial closed software
fills the gap. If FOSS versions are available for doing the same tasks,
the customer will simply download that software and use it for free. He
still doesn't generate revenue for the FOSS maker.

Regards,

Rony.


___________________________________________________________
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com
Devdas Bhagat
2006-10-09 18:01:11 UTC
Permalink
On 09/10/06 21:20 +0530, Rony wrote:
<snip>
Post by Rony
So the bottom line is that FOSS cannot make money on sales. They can
only make money through service and customization. This happens only for
big customers. Thats why the home or small office customers remain
untouched by FOSS companies. Thats where commercial closed software
*Sigh*. The home user will *NOT* pay money for software, unless forced
to. I don't know of too many small business owners who want to pay for
software either, unless it directly affects their revenue/profit
generation. So Tally will be bought, Office and Windows will be copied.
Post by Rony
fills the gap. If FOSS versions are available for doing the same tasks,
the customer will simply download that software and use it for free. He
still doesn't generate revenue for the FOSS maker.
Pssst, Redhat became profitable after dropping their support for small
customers. How much revenue do you think Microsoft actually gets from
home users (or small businesses)? And you do know that OEM versions of
Windows come with no support whatsoever?
Notice that Microsoft fixes DRM flaws in three days, but regular users
have to wait for a few weeks (to months) to get patches for exploitable
bugs. Who do you think their real customers are?

The 90/10 rule applies for profitable customers (90% of your customer
base will not give you a profit, 10% will).

Also, if you notice, service is a far more profitable market than pure
sales (MSFT is desperate to break into the service market, IBM generates
very large profits from service. IBM even sold the PC division because
it wasn't generating enough profits.).

Devdas Bhagat
Kenneth Gonsalves
2006-10-10 01:13:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rony
So the bottom line is that FOSS cannot make money on sales.
why not?
--
regards

Kenneth Gonsalves
Associate, NRC-FOSS
***@au-kbc.org
http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/
jtd
2006-10-10 13:18:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rony
Post by Aseem Rane
And already some companies are doing that. Successfully till now.
So the bottom line is that FOSS cannot make money on sales.
Wrong. U can sell and make near 100% profit. U dont have to pay an
overseer.
Post by Rony
They
can only make money through service and customization. This happens
only for big customers. Thats why the home or small office
customers remain untouched by FOSS companies. Thats where
commercial closed software fills the gap.
You couldn't be more off the mark.
Post by Rony
If FOSS versions are
available for doing the same tasks, the customer will simply
download that software and use it for free. He still doesn't
generate revenue for the FOSS maker.
so your selling price would be limited to the customers download cost
right?. What were u expecting gadzillion dollars?. But u could charge
an hefty premium and get gadzillion dollars. How? Brand building.
How would u postion your stuff, what market segment, what focus.
Design an appropriate brand building strategy. Spend Rs. 1 billion
and carpet bomb all print and electronic media. I bet Rs.500/- u will
be lhe largest selling Linux distro in India. Will u make money
selling to individuals? since it's your business u should know. If u
dont know u should hire a management team to do the homework.

What u are trying to do in this thread is make a business plan with
only one input - somebody else's distro. And then conclude without
any logic that u cant make money because the next guy has the same
input's as u. If u stand in the middle of the herd u are going to
move at the same speed as the herd. If u jump out and run u may go
far or get eaten by the lions. In either case it's not the fault of
the grass, or the land or the herd. U should be smart enough to see
the possibilities.
As others have pointed out there are umpteen companies selling gpl
software, services or both. They are far more profitably than M$ and
many are valued several times higher than M$.

all of the above applies absolutely equally to closed and open
software. Profitability and market share has got nothing to do with
the licence. In my loong exposure in this industry most of the
software companies were always closed software companies and most of
them have gone under / merged / morphed into something else. Not just
here but world over. U can see it happening just now to the big
bully. I bet u another Rs.500/- that M$ will have changed
substantially in the next 5 yrs.
--
Rgds
JTD
Rony
2006-10-10 15:28:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by jtd
What u are trying to do in this thread is make a business plan with
only one input - somebody else's distro. And then conclude without
any logic that u cant make money because the next guy has the same
input's as u.
Not at all. The distro is made by me ( in the example I gave ) and I
want to make money selling it, not allow someone *else* to ruin my
fruits of labour by giving it away free while I wait for customers to
turn up at my door. It should not turn into a "Come O bull, hit me" as I
grant gpl permission to others to do it.

Regards,

Rony.




___________________________________________________________
All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of use." - PC Magazine
http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
jtd
2006-10-10 16:22:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rony
Post by jtd
What u are trying to do in this thread is make a business plan
with only one input - somebody else's distro. And then conclude
without any logic that u cant make money because the next guy has
the same input's as u.
Not at all. The distro is made by me ( in the example I gave ) and
I want to make money selling it, not allow someone *else* to ruin
my fruits of labour by giving it away free while I wait for
customers to turn up at my door. It should not turn into a "Come O
bull, hit me" as I grant gpl permission to others to do it.
Aha. But u dont have to give it away free at all. U can most certainly
sell it. What u cant do is prevent the downstream from selling it too
- except for your trade marks and brand marks. So if u have the might
to build a brand and distribute where is the problem? The downstream
guy CANT copy your trademarks, brand marks, distinctive packaging,
documentation.
Think "Lux supreme" made in umpteen sweat shop like SSIs, Coughka
Khola bottled by numerous bottlers, Lays potato chips, Pan Parag,
VIP, Amul. U can roll these in your kitchen with better performance
and lower costs.
All the above products stand on brands and distribution networks,
built at enormous costs over time, that act as entry barriers. So
even superior products cannot easily enter the market. The big brands
too follow arm twisting tactics, occasionally illegal (smashing up
bottles, engineering labour unrest ) but mostly more brand building
and distribution incentives.
Infact the unorganised sector sells more of the above products than
all the branded guys put together. Same story in the PC hardware
market.
As u can see the licence has got nothing to do with market acceptance
on a commercial basis. In fact in this case the gpl is actually
lowering the entry barrier - almost zero development costs for u and
others too. It is leveraging the power of word of mouth publicity and
new communication media. It's leveraging new distribution channels -
internet. It's totally focussed on the customer - just send a mail
about a bug to developer and see. The one thing it isnt focussed on
is an individual business. If your goals deviate from those of the
contibutors u can pay them to work towards your goals or do it your
self (as in hire somebody). What u have is essentially a natural
commodity abundantly and freely available (water, air). Wether u sell
it plain, bottled, with nimbu, chai or pesticide is what u decide
based on your resources.
--
Rgds
JTD
Kenneth Gonsalves
2006-10-11 02:03:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rony
Not at all. The distro is made by me ( in the example I gave ) and
I want to make money selling it, not allow someone *else* to ruin
my fruits of labour by giving it away free while I wait for
customers to turn up at my door. It should not turn into a "Come O
bull, hit me" as I grant gpl permission to others to do it.
did you or did you not check out collabnet as I asked you to do? If
you havent, please stop asking n00b questions.
--
regards

Kenneth Gonsalves
Associate, NRC-FOSS
***@au-kbc.org
http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/
Rony
2006-10-11 15:37:20 UTC
Permalink
Not at all. The distro is made by me ( in the example I gave ) and I
want to make money selling it, not allow someone *else* to ruin my
fruits of labour by giving it away free while I wait for customers to
turn up at my door. It should not turn into a "Come O bull, hit me"
as I grant gpl permission to others to do it.
did you or did you not check out collabnet as I asked you to do? If you
havent, please stop asking n00b questions.
The reply was in response to the op's mis-understanding of my earlier
mail. There was no question in it.

Regards,

Rony.

Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
jtd
2006-10-10 15:32:34 UTC
Permalink
On Tuesday 10 October 2006 18:48, jtd wrote:

Correction before others start beating me up.
Post by jtd
In my loong exposure in this industry most of the
software companies were always closed software companies and most
Closed as in not following the foss development model. Infact most
were selling packaged software (Plant maintanence, accounting,
payroll, MM, bank branch automation, ticketing, etc) at ridiculously
low prices. The first thing that the customer would ask "will u
customize" if u said no u were out. If u said yes the haggling over
customisation would begin. In every case i knew of, the source would
be right there on the disk and a back up on umpteen floppies for good
measure.
--
Rgds
JTD
Kenneth Gonsalves
2006-10-10 01:10:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rony
But in the latter, suppose I make a CAD software thats very good
and works just like the popular closed CAD software. I post it on
the net under GPL and keep a price of some 100s of dollars. Now
some smart alec who is out to ruin my business compiles my code and
even acknowledges my good work and puts the package on the net for
a free download. He is doing a perfectly legal thing as the GPL
allows this. So how do I run my company when my work is available
to others for free as in beer.
take a look at collabnet. They make obscene amounts of money
marketing subversion. And they are the guys who have put up
subversion for free download
--
regards

Kenneth Gonsalves
Associate, NRC-FOSS
***@au-kbc.org
http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/
Dinesh Shah
2006-10-08 18:22:37 UTC
Permalink
Hi Rony,
Post by Rony
If I own a software company, how do I make money if my software is OSS
and anyone can compile the code and sell copies of the same without I
getting any share of it? Is too much freedom dangerous?
The standard answer you will get from FSF/GNU people is - "You provide
services around your software". :-)

I know this is not the complete or only answer!

At the same time we have many example of FOSS Companies who write free
software and still make money. :-)

There are closed source software companies who write software and make
far larger amount of money. :-D

The question is about priorities, objectives and goals. Different
people and organisations have different priorities, objectives and
goals.

When you as developer / business / student want make a choice, you
have to find your own answer. There is no single and simple answer to
the above question. :-(
Post by Rony
Regards,
Rony.
With regards,
--
--Dinesh Shah :-)
Philip Tellis
2006-10-08 19:42:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rony
If I own a software company, how do I make money if my software is OSS
and anyone can compile the code and sell copies of the same without I
getting any share of it? Is too much freedom dangerous?
Music labels ask the same question about their music being shared across
the internet. Now, it comes as no surprise that the same people who
fight for free software also fight for open distribution of online
music. What's strange is that a large portion of people who fight for
open distribution of online music would not give away their own software
for free.

The fact is that with changing technology, business models need to
adapt to stay in the game. Legislating that things stay the same
because you wouldn't make money if they changed is counter productive to
everyone, yourself included.

The first business to discover a sustainable business model based on
the free share of online assets will likely remain a business leader for
quite a while.

Many people will tell you that you make money by selling services rather
than selling software. IMO, that's not really sustainable. As your
client base increases, your need for more support personnel increases,
and consequently your costs go up. Selling products and providing
service for them will always get you more money than selling service
only (which anyone can do).

Many companies are starting to identify new means of making money out of
stuff they give away, but the killer business plan hasn't surfaced yet.
Devdas Bhagat
2006-10-08 22:29:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rony
Post by Dinesh Shah
There are large number of businesses / developers / students who do
have this question - "If I give away my source code, how will I make
money".
If I own a software company, how do I make money if my software is OSS
and anyone can compile the code and sell copies of the same without I
getting any share of it? Is too much freedom dangerous?
Every large corporate I know wants support contracts. Too much freedom?
The second option is to write custom software. Basic economic analysis
should tell you why normal economic models fail with the Internet.

Devdas Bhagat
jtd
2006-10-09 05:03:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rony
Post by Dinesh Shah
There are large number of businesses / developers / students who
do have this question - "If I give away my source code, how will
I make money".
If I own a software company, how do I make money if my software is
OSS and anyone can compile the code and sell copies of the same
without I getting any share of it? Is too much freedom dangerous?
Dont even think of a bussiness if your bussines is so trivial that
somebody can copy your bussiness. Think of a shop with some goods. If
some of the goods are stolen and sold your bussiness does not
collapse. It will have a set back, which u mitigate by things like
insurance. Now think of a shop with just one single diamond. Your
risk is extremely high. Mitigating your business against collapse
from robbery would be phenomenally high. And would keep climbing. The
more successfull the business (based on single diamond metaphor) the
more would be the attacks, risk and cost of doing business. It's only
a matter of time before it collapses.

Otoh if u were doing business with libre software, the money that u
would spend on buying bigger locks could be used for adding value to
your customers ROI - which the big lock does not. The value add has
to be given to the customer, not to your competitor. But wait.
what if i gave it to the competitor and he uses it with his customer.
I walk up to his customer and point out my copyright. A savvy
customer would immediately understand your strength.
The above is a very simplistic view.
Writing new software is "trivial" making it work is devilishly complex
and so expensive that even the worlds richest software company cant
get it to work a full two years after the announced launch.
So if u published your code the rest of the world does all the grunt
work of testing, debugging and adding great features. Can u imagine
the likes of Philip Tellis or Kenneth Laversen or Donald Becker or
Damein Sandras on your "team"?. God u are miles ahead in the race
with these guys on your side. This is what sells - not big lock on
trivial software and brain dead bussiness model.
--
Rgds
JTD
Vinayak Hegde
2006-10-09 14:49:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rony
If I own a software company, how do I make money if my software is OSS
and anyone can compile the code and sell copies of the same without I
getting any share of it? Is too much freedom dangerous?
There are FOSS companies which make money by:
1) Writing custom features/plugins around their products.
2) Providing support around their products.
3) Charging money for documentation
4) Dual licensing source code for commercial use

There is more than one FOSS company which falls into one or more of these
categories.

-- Vinayak
Kenneth Gonsalves
2006-10-10 02:01:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nagarjuna G.
Good UI or technology is not really scarse. What is scarse is
awareness that freedom of the users is important. Several of you are
spreading the use of Linux[sic] among your friends, families. That is
really good work. But when you did that you are spreading it as
technology, saying we can do this, as well as this, and without
viruses etc etc. This does work in a pragmatic society. Seeing this
strategy working we feel this is sufficient, but no.
we now have a third type of linux - 'linux[sic]' ;-). My philosophy
is simple:

If they want free as in beer - tell them its free as in beer
if they want cheap - tell them its cheap
if they want stable - give them stable
if they want no-virus - it is no-virus
if they want user friendly - show them user friendly
if they want maintainable - it is
if they want adaptable - show them how to adapt
if they want efficient - very efficient
and, if they want freedom - give them that too.

So far, i have yet to meet anyone asking for freedom. And it is not
something that can be taught. People go in for foss for any or all
the reasons above, and slowly realise, to some degree or the other
what freedom is, and the fact that they are free.

The biggest turn-off for people is the semi-religious approach to
foss. I feel it is time the FSF started realising who its enemies are
(they are not who they think they are). Frankly I feel the usage of
the term 'linux[sic]' is sick.
--
regards

Kenneth Gonsalves
Associate, NRC-FOSS
***@au-kbc.org
http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/
dipankar das
2006-10-10 02:50:08 UTC
Permalink
So far, i have yet to meet anyone asking for freedom. And it is not  
something that can be taught. People go in for foss for any or all  
the reasons above, and slowly realise, to some degree or the other  
what freedom is, and the fact that they are free.
I have seen a few students, who wanted to know a piece of SW down to its
deepest level: exactly how it works. A question that has its ONLY reply in
*FREE*.
The biggest turn-off for people is the semi-religious approach to  
foss. I feel it is time the FSF started realising who its enemies are  
(they are not who they think they are). Frankly I feel the usage of  
the term 'linux[sic]' is sick.
The people that are writing 'linux[sic]' can put forward a reason. And you are
just feeling? Why don't go to some 3-paise romance societies: they will
appreciate a lot your idiotic talk-smart stance.

das
Dinesh Shah
2006-10-10 07:39:39 UTC
Permalink
Dear Depankar,
Post by dipankar das
The people that are writing 'linux[sic]' can put forward a reason. And you are
just feeling? Why don't go to some 3-paise romance societies: they will
appreciate a lot your idiotic talk-smart stance.
No personal attacks please. And please stay on the topic.
Post by dipankar das
das
TIA for your understanding and not starting a flame war. :-)
With regards,
--
--Dinesh Shah :-)
Nagarjuna G.
2006-10-10 09:50:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dinesh Shah
Dear Depankar,
Post by dipankar das
The people that are writing 'linux[sic]' can put forward a reason. And you are
just feeling? Why don't go to some 3-paise romance societies: they will
appreciate a lot your idiotic talk-smart stance.
No personal attacks please. And please stay on the topic.
It is easy to say 'sic' is sick. No admirable poetry this. This only
diverts the attention from a serious discussion.

Collect all your favourite free software applications and go to their
web sites and note down on what operating systems (and kernels) they
run on. It will strike us all to see that most of them (actually
almost all of them) are either ported, or were always ported to almost
all the systems (including the proprietary systems). And then check
what makes that portability possible? And then check again, what
makes this portability and distribution possible with software
freedom?

The application layer of our operating system can be regenerated on
top of other kernels and operating systems not only today but in
future too. You may want to get a glance of that from
http://www.debian.org/ports/, though this is not comprehensive enough.

I see no reason why I should think of dispensing what is not
dispensible, and see no reason why I cannot dispense what is
dispensable. And then, I see no reason why this activism to discredit
a creditable and indispensable contribution.

If the name 'Linux' was defined with the semantics of software
freedom, this name issues wouldn't have arisen. People would have
embraced it. On the contrary what we saw was active and vehement
dissociation from it. That is the reason why GNU finds it difficult
to exclusively talk of Linux, so they talk about it inclusively. GNU
project adopted Linux with open arms, and promoted it with as much
fervour as it did with other projects of their own. They acknowledged
it everywhere. So, the GNU community feels betrayed when the
community at large speaks excluding the name as well as their
ideology.

We wish this symbiosis is sustained as well as acknowledged. How else
to do that than GNU+Linux?

Regarding the idea of earning money: I am not repeating what is
always said that free software business model is service oriented.
But, what is often missed : It is unethical to make money by selling
what is not sellable. It is unethical to make what is eminently
copyable code into non-copyable code by technical means.

Proprietary software sells an artificial decoder and says it is their
service. They seperate code from decoder for doing this. Free
software says, artificial decoders' service cannot be equated with
human decoders', and hence we should not have a price for software
decoders. If we don't resist this temptation from business interests,
let me warn you, IT will invent more and more software services, and
will replace humans. That society will have only mega software
governments who will create software slaves (and rule them too) and
turn you and me also as slaves. In that society only a minority of us
will be part of that and the rest will be exploited.

Since the knowledge of how to create an artificial decoder is no
secret, for it is computer science, it cannot be made some industry's
exclusive property. The only way to keep it with people forever is to
do the way science is done. Computer science is no different from
other sciences.

So, if you make a useful CAD application, sell it. Give warrenty to
those who give you more money, to others give the applicatiion without
warrenty and you can still charge them minimally or if you wish give
it away gratis. You don't loose in this game, since your useful
application will make you immortal, and your warrenty service will
make you rich. You can see how ethical this plan is if you realize
that the current propietary software applications that are sold to
desktop users do not carry any warrenty (read the fine print), and
they are still asking you money. This is unjustififed. They do sell
warrenty to industries, not to you and me.

Also, counting who is majority and who is minority doesn't tell what
is good. The point is to change the numbers.

Nagarjuna
Devdas Bhagat
2006-10-10 10:14:11 UTC
Permalink
On 10/10/06 15:20 +0530, Nagarjuna G. wrote:
<snip>
Post by Nagarjuna G.
it everywhere. So, the GNU community feels betrayed when the
community at large speaks excluding the name as well as their
ideology.
So I say Linux and put code out under the terms of the GPL v2.
Post by Nagarjuna G.
We wish this symbiosis is sustained as well as acknowledged. How else
to do that than GNU+Linux?
See above. The problem with GNU/Linux is that it excludes everyone else.
There has been an immense contribution from BSD, MPL, Apache,
Artistic and other licenses in the code which makes Linux useful. So we
either acknowledge them all, or none of them.

Devdas Bhagat
Nagarjuna G.
2006-10-10 10:49:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Devdas Bhagat
<snip>
Post by Nagarjuna G.
it everywhere. So, the GNU community feels betrayed when the
community at large speaks excluding the name as well as their
ideology.
So I say Linux and put code out under the terms of the GPL v2.
Post by Nagarjuna G.
We wish this symbiosis is sustained as well as acknowledged. How else
to do that than GNU+Linux?
See above. The problem with GNU/Linux is that it excludes everyone else.
There has been an immense contribution from BSD, MPL, Apache,
Artistic and other licenses in the code which makes Linux useful. So we
either acknowledge them all, or none of them.
why not, we do have GNU/NetBSD, GNU/KfreeBSD. Mozilla, and Apache are
application projects therefore donot fit to be called operating
systems. We dont give all the application names in the operating
system. They are very useful parts of the full system, just as bash,
emacs, GNOME, KDE, OpenOffice.org etc. are. You are trying to read it
as a licensing issue, it is not.

GNU community did untiringly requested all other licenses to make them
compatible with GPL, or dual license them, in the interest of user's
freedom. Lot of projects do this, e.g. openoffice.org, Perl. Several
projects' licenses have been modified, and became compatible with GPL,
eg. ZPL, PPL, APL. But, it is unfortunate that people read this
interest as FSF's interest, as if FSF's interest is not in their
interest. But, why not work in favor of FSF's interest, if FSF's
agenda is to protect your and my freedom. When we are requesting
people to adopt GPLv3, it is not to snatch anything from from you, but
to prevent it from getting snatched.

Nagarjuna
Mrugesh Karnik
2006-10-10 11:50:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nagarjuna G.
GNU community did untiringly requested all other licenses to make
them compatible with GPL, or dual license them, in the interest of
user's freedom. Lot of projects do this, e.g. openoffice.org, Perl.
Several projects' licenses have been modified, and became compatible
with GPL, eg. ZPL, PPL, APL. But, it is unfortunate that people read
this interest as FSF's interest, as if FSF's interest is not in their
interest.
Tell me something. Some people who are 'fans' of GNU, go to such lengths
as to call all the software that's been licensed under the GPL, GNU
software. Now if I write some software and use GPL for it, I'd most
certainly not be willing to accredit it to GNU. Why should I? Like
Linux said, "Authors matter." By using the term GNU/Linux, it seems as
though Linux is just a part of the GNU project. It is not. Just because
someone uses your tools to build their own software does not mean that
you own that software. If you have such issues, don't let people use
the tools. But again, that goes against freedom, doesn't it?

What I hate about you FSF people is that you try and steal credit. You
just said the same thing again... Use GNU in the name? WHY? Make up a
name that highlights freedom, _very very clearly_.

Oh and mind you, you say GNU/Linux not GNU & Linux. The only place where
I've seen that second term used is on those stickers:

"GNU + Linux, the dynamic duo".

I think that's fair. Clearly states that Linux is a separate project.
GNU/Linux does not do that.
Post by Nagarjuna G.
But, why not work in favor of FSF's interest, if FSF's
agenda is to protect your and my freedom. When we are requesting
people to adopt GPLv3, it is not to snatch anything from from you,
but to prevent it from getting snatched.
Highlight "request". I agree with Linus. If the kernel developers think
that GPL 3 is no good for the kernel, so be it. Let it be under GPL 2.
Why create an issue? Highlight "request".
Post by Nagarjuna G.
Nagarjuna
--
----------------------------------------
Mrugesh Karnik
GPG Key 0xBA6F1DA8
Public key on http://wwwkeys.pgp.net
----------------------------------------
Nagarjuna G.
2006-10-10 15:32:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mrugesh Karnik
Post by Nagarjuna G.
GNU community did untiringly requested all other licenses to make
them compatible with GPL, or dual license them, in the interest of
user's freedom. Lot of projects do this, e.g. openoffice.org, Perl.
Several projects' licenses have been modified, and became compatible
with GPL, eg. ZPL, PPL, APL. But, it is unfortunate that people read
this interest as FSF's interest, as if FSF's interest is not in their
interest.
Tell me something. Some people who are 'fans' of GNU, go to such lengths
as to call all the software that's been licensed under the GPL, GNU
software. Now if I write some software and use GPL for it, I'd most
certainly not be willing to accredit it to GNU. Why should I?
This is just your assumption, who is asking any one to credit GNU for
a non GNU project? The system is indeed GNU system with Linux as a
kernel. When the kernel was completed, the only thing you need is to
add is the GNU system to make it an OS. And the kernel was also
completed using GNU tools. Under such a situation, why do you think
we are asking for a thing that we didn't deserve?
Post by Mrugesh Karnik
Like
Linux said, "Authors matter." By using the term GNU/Linux, it seems as
though Linux is just a part of the GNU project. It is not. Just because
someone uses your tools to build their own software does not mean that
you own that software. If you have such issues, don't let people use
the tools. But again, that goes against freedom, doesn't it?
GNU doesn't own any software, GNU is software. GNU is not a person,
not a company, so the ownership issue doesn't arise.
Post by Mrugesh Karnik
What I hate about you FSF people is that you try and steal credit. You
just said the same thing again... Use GNU in the name? WHY? Make up a
name that highlights freedom, _very very clearly_.
GNU is a name that highlights software freedom. It is historically
embedded in the semantics of the term, and is a symbol of software
freedom.

You are using very harsh terms, 'hate', 'steal'. We embraced linux,
we didn't hate. We are not trying to steal credit, we are asking for
what we deserve.
Post by Mrugesh Karnik
I think that's fair. Clearly states that Linux is a separate project.
GNU/Linux does not do that.
GNU and Linux are separate projects. If you say, + says that better
than /, please do so. We are only saying please don't omit GNU.
Post by Mrugesh Karnik
Post by Nagarjuna G.
But, why not work in favor of FSF's interest, if FSF's
agenda is to protect your and my freedom. When we are requesting
people to adopt GPLv3, it is not to snatch anything from from you,
but to prevent it from getting snatched.
Highlight "request". I agree with Linus. If the kernel developers think
that GPL 3 is no good for the kernel, so be it. Let it be under GPL 2.
Why create an issue? Highlight "request".
Never did FSF force. But, we have a right to request again, and may
be again. We want to inform about the danger of loosing software
freedom, that is our project, we will do it relentlessly. But will
never force, and we never did. Isn't it fair enough.

On the one hand there are requesting people, on the other hand there
are those who say, go and make your own kernel. We never even said
once, go and make your own compiler and tools. Please dont do that,
it is not necessary. It will be stupid to do that. And GNU will not
make another monolithic kernel, if it will make a kernel, it will be
HURD.

If you dont want to call the system GNU + Linux, that is your choice,
but next time I find you saying only Linux when you meant not merely
the kernel, we will relentlessly request. Request is not force. It
is not a threat. We will repeat, relentlessly. It is our recurring
demand from the community ever since we were cheated for not giving
the credit we deserve. We love recurrence for more than one
reason---mind you GNU is a recursive acronym---for we knew that
freedom is such a goal. The loop in the life will end when we get
freedom, till then we are not tired of living.

Nagarjuna
Mrugesh Karnik
2006-10-10 16:15:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nagarjuna G.
Post by Mrugesh Karnik
Post by Nagarjuna G.
GNU community did untiringly requested all other licenses to make
them compatible with GPL, or dual license them, in the interest
of user's freedom. Lot of projects do this, e.g. openoffice.org,
Perl. Several projects' licenses have been modified, and became
compatible with GPL, eg. ZPL, PPL, APL. But, it is unfortunate
that people read this interest as FSF's interest, as if FSF's
interest is not in their interest.
Tell me something. Some people who are 'fans' of GNU, go to such
lengths as to call all the software that's been licensed under the
GPL, GNU software. Now if I write some software and use GPL for it,
I'd most certainly not be willing to accredit it to GNU. Why should
I?
This is just your assumption, who is asking any one to credit GNU for
a non GNU project? The system is indeed GNU system with Linux as a
kernel. When the kernel was completed, the only thing you need is to
add is the GNU system to make it an OS. And the kernel was also
completed using GNU tools. Under such a situation, why do you think
we are asking for a thing that we didn't deserve?
Hehehe. Thank you. Exactly what I needed to hear from an FSF
representative. Now would you be so kind as to make sure everyone who
tries to spread GNU philosophy is clear upon this point? I've had
arguments with people about this, even during the RMS lecture. Pity,
for the lack of time on RMS' part meant that I couldn't bring up this
issue right there.
Post by Nagarjuna G.
Post by Mrugesh Karnik
Like
Linux said, "Authors matter." By using the term GNU/Linux, it seems
as though Linux is just a part of the GNU project. It is not. Just
because someone uses your tools to build their own software does
not mean that you own that software. If you have such issues, don't
let people use the tools. But again, that goes against freedom,
doesn't it?
GNU doesn't own any software, GNU is software. GNU is not a person,
not a company, so the ownership issue doesn't arise.
There goes Vihan's argument from the Andheri BoF. Granted that he did
not mean that GNU owned the kernel, but I suppose he has no right to
say this:

"But Linus himself uses GCC to build the kernel.."
Post by Nagarjuna G.
Post by Mrugesh Karnik
What I hate about you FSF people is that you try and steal credit.
You just said the same thing again... Use GNU in the name? WHY?
Make up a name that highlights freedom, _very very clearly_.
GNU is a name that highlights software freedom. It is historically
embedded in the semantics of the term, and is a symbol of software
freedom.
Yes, well the point is, to a layman, who is completely new to this
world, the word GNU doesn't make any sense.
Post by Nagarjuna G.
You are using very harsh terms, 'hate', 'steal'. We embraced linux,
we didn't hate. We are not trying to steal credit, we are asking for
what we deserve.
My sincerest apologies for the harsh language. *bow*

Now what I mean by 'stealing credit' has been explained much better by
KG in his response to your previous email.
Post by Nagarjuna G.
Post by Mrugesh Karnik
I think that's fair. Clearly states that Linux is a separate
project. GNU/Linux does not do that.
GNU and Linux are separate projects. If you say, + says that better
than /, please do so. We are only saying please don't omit GNU.
Sure, but what about the other projects?

Now, let me clarify something. You might feel that I am against GNU or
something. That is not the case. Whenever I introduce someone to Linux,
I tell him about Linux being a kernel and not the entire OS. I explain
the term Free Software and I state the importance of Freedom. I am not
on anybody's side. I just agree with what _I_ think is correct, may it
come from anybody.
Post by Nagarjuna G.
Post by Mrugesh Karnik
Post by Nagarjuna G.
But, why not work in favor of FSF's interest, if FSF's
agenda is to protect your and my freedom. When we are
requesting people to adopt GPLv3, it is not to snatch anything
from from you, but to prevent it from getting snatched.
Highlight "request". I agree with Linus. If the kernel developers
think that GPL 3 is no good for the kernel, so be it. Let it be
under GPL 2. Why create an issue? Highlight "request".
Never did FSF force. But, we have a right to request again, and may
be again. We want to inform about the danger of loosing software
freedom, that is our project, we will do it relentlessly. But will
never force, and we never did. Isn't it fair enough.
On the one hand there are requesting people, on the other hand there
are those who say, go and make your own kernel. We never even said
once, go and make your own compiler and tools. Please dont do that,
it is not necessary. It will be stupid to do that. And GNU will not
make another monolithic kernel, if it will make a kernel, it will be
HURD.
Good luck. And that's no sarcasm. I think it'll do this world good if
there was another kernel that could compete with Linux. Monopoly,
anywhere, is bad. The ego of being able to say "Go write your own
kernel" shouldn't be allowed to happen.
Post by Nagarjuna G.
If you dont want to call the system GNU + Linux, that is your choice,
but next time I find you saying only Linux when you meant not merely
the kernel, we will relentlessly request.
Hehehe, I wouldn't use GNU+Linux either. I have yet to decide upon what
name depicts the freedom part clearly.. FOSS+Linux maybe? I am open to
suggestions.
Post by Nagarjuna G.
Nagarjuna
--
----------------------------------------
Mrugesh Karnik
GPG Key 0xBA6F1DA8
Public key on http://wwwkeys.pgp.net
----------------------------------------
പ്രവീണ്‍‌|Praveen
2006-10-12 07:04:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mrugesh Karnik
Tell me something. Some people who are 'fans' of GNU, go to such lengths
as to call all the software that's been licensed under the GPL, GNU
software. Now if I write some software and use GPL for it, I'd most
certainly not be willing to accredit it to GNU. Why should I? Like
Linux said, "Authors matter." By using the term GNU/Linux, it seems as
though Linux is just a part of the GNU project. It is not.
Linux is not part of GNU project, that is why it is not GNU Linux
(softwared from GNU project has names like that GNU Emacs, GNU grub, GNU
compiler collection... ) GNU/Linux (pronounced GNU slash Linux) means
GNU+Linux.

Just because
Post by Mrugesh Karnik
someone uses your tools to build their own software does not mean that
you own that software.
Linux developed a kernel and GNU project build tools around that is a wrong
idea. If you had done some reasearch about the rigin you would have realised
it. GNU project was started to build a complete Free Operating system and
they started replacing parts of unix and they reached a point when they
replaced most parts for a Unix like system except for the kernel. At that
time Linux was not released and there were no kernels available as Free
Software (the original BSD license was not Free Software) so they started
building their own kernel replacement called Hurd. But when Linus Torva;ds
released his kernel under GPL v2 it filled that gap and we didn't have to
wait for Hurd to finish to have a complete Unix like system.

So instead of adopting Linux as GNU's official kernel (since it tries to be
upto Unix while hurd tries to improve upon Unix ideas) Linux was combined
with the rest of the GNU system to make a comple Unix like Operating System
and it is called GNU-slash-Linux clearly meaning GNU+Linux (as opposed to
GNU Linux would mean GNU's version of Linux). GNU project gave creadit to
linux as without it we would not have the complete system and it is an
important contribution.

Linus torvalds didn't write the system to have a complete Free Operating
system, but it was started as a college project. The motivation is different
that freedom. So when you remove GNU from picture the history is twisted.
The reason why the Free Software movement was started not because
programming was fun but because we respect users Freedom and there was no
Free operating systems available, so we wrote one.
Devdas Bhagat
2006-10-12 09:59:03 UTC
Permalink
On 12/10/06 12:34 +0530, ???????????????????????????|Praveen wrote:
<snip>
Post by പ്രവീണ്‍‌|Praveen
Software (the original BSD license was not Free Software) so they started
The BSD license was free software. It had an advertising clause, which
RMS did not like (for perfectly correct technical reasons, there were
too many contributors and the published credits list would be too long.).
<Snip>
Post by പ്രവീണ്‍‌|Praveen
and it is called GNU-slash-Linux clearly meaning GNU+Linux (as opposed to
Uhm, no. I read that as giving the GNU project credit, but without
giving it to anyone else involved in the making of the distribution.

Devdas Bhagat
പ്രവീണ്‍‌|Praveen
2006-10-12 07:05:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mrugesh Karnik
If you have such issues, don't let people use
the tools. But again, that goes against freedom, doesn't it?
What I hate about you FSF people is that you try and steal credit.


I don't agee. What FSF is asking is the credit it rightly deserves.

You
Post by Mrugesh Karnik
just said the same thing again... Use GNU in the name? WHY? Make up a
name that highlights freedom, _very very clearly_.
GNU represents users freedom.

Oh and mind you, you say GNU/Linux not GNU & Linux. The only place where
Post by Mrugesh Karnik
"GNU + Linux, the dynamic duo".
I think that's fair. Clearly states that Linux is a separate project.
GNU/Linux does not do that.
May be you misunderstood. GNU/Linux is clear. May be GNU+Linux is clearer.
Post by Mrugesh Karnik
But, why not work in favor of FSF's interest, if FSF's
Post by Nagarjuna G.
agenda is to protect your and my freedom. When we are requesting
people to adopt GPLv3, it is not to snatch anything from from you,
but to prevent it from getting snatched.
Highlight "request". I agree with Linus. If the kernel developers think
that GPL 3 is no good for the kernel, so be it. Let it be under GPL 2.
Why create an issue? Highlight "request".
GPL protect users Freedom. So when we have threats (like software patents,
DRM ...) to users freedom we need to defend it. GPLv3 is trying to cover
some of the shortcomings of GPL v2. It has be around for 15 years and a lot
of things has changed and new threats have come. So we need to equip
ourselves for new conditions.

Cheers
Praveen
--
"Value your freedom, or you will lose it, teaches history.
`Don't bother us with politics', respond those who don't want to learn."
-- Richard Stallman
Me scribbles at http://www.pravi.co.nr
Philip Tellis
2006-10-13 07:08:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by പ്രവീണ്‍‌|Praveen
May be you misunderstood. GNU/Linux is clear. May be GNU+Linux is clearer.
By that logic, GNU/Linux means GNU divided by linux :P
--
Uproot your questions from their ground and the dangling roots will be seen.
More questions!

-- Mentat Zensufi
Kenneth Gonsalves
2006-10-10 12:39:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nagarjuna G.
agenda is to protect your and my freedom. When we are requesting
people to adopt GPLv3, it is not to snatch anything from from you, but
to prevent it from getting snatched.
be clear on one thing - GPL is not the only license around. FOSS
licences range from pure BSD licences - which are the freest and
least restrictive to the GPL, which is the most restrictive. Apache
Software Foundation does not use the GPL - and you just have to look
at their projects to see the huge contribution they have made to the
foss world. And zope/plone, postgresql, python, php ... the list is
endless. And also be clear that even assuming the operating system in
what you call GNU/Linux is all GNU and GPL, a machine just running
that operating system on that kernel is useless. It needs the
applications to be useful. And a very large number of those
applications are non-GNU and non-GPL. And they are free - and no one
will be able to snatch away their freedom. So the assertion that the
GPL is the sole guardian of freedom is false.

So i feel that you should stop trying to claim parentage of Linux -
linux neither wants or needs it. Far better you concentrate on your
own baby - hurd. I personaly now find the best term to use is just
FOSS - not linux, not bsd, not darwin - a totally neutral term that
clearly identifies the 'enemy'.
--
regards

Kenneth Gonsalves
Associate, NRC-FOSS
***@au-kbc.org
http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/
പ്രവീണ്‍‌|Praveen
2006-10-10 13:18:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kenneth Gonsalves
be clear on one thing - GPL is not the only license around. FOSS
licences range from pure BSD licences - which are the freest and
least restrictive to the GPL, which is the most restrictive.
GPL is a copyleft license, it guarantees that all users will get the
freedom. You can build a proprietory application using BSD licensed code. It
is also Free Software but not copyleft. GPL has restrction so that all users
will have freedom.

Apache
Post by Kenneth Gonsalves
Software Foundation does not use the GPL - and you just have to look
at their projects to see the huge contribution they have made to the
foss world.
Clearly everyone accept that and recognises their work.

And zope/plone, postgresql, python, php ... the list is
Post by Kenneth Gonsalves
endless. And also be clear that even assuming the operating system in
what you call GNU/Linux is all GNU and GPL, a machine just running
that operating system on that kernel is useless. It needs the
applications to be useful. And a very large number of those
applications are non-GNU and non-GPL. And they are free - and no one
will be able to snatch away their freedom. So the assertion that the
GPL is the sole guardian of freedom is false.
It is more than a license issue. GPL is there to guarantee all users will
have freedom.

So i feel that you should stop trying to claim parentage of Linux -
Post by Kenneth Gonsalves
linux neither wants or needs it. Far better you concentrate on your
own baby - hurd.
GNU project started to develop a completely Free Operating system and since
Linux filled the last piece to have a full OS the only motivation for hurd
is technical, it tries to improve Unix design while Linux is trying to be
like Unix.

Cheers
Praveen
--
"Value your freedom, or you will lose it, teaches history.
`Don't bother us with politics', respond those who don't want to learn."
-- Richard Stallman
Me scribbles at http://www.pravi.co.nr
Devdas Bhagat
2006-10-10 15:56:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nagarjuna G.
Post by Devdas Bhagat
<snip>
Post by Nagarjuna G.
it everywhere. So, the GNU community feels betrayed when the
community at large speaks excluding the name as well as their
ideology.
So I say Linux and put code out under the terms of the GPL v2.
Post by Nagarjuna G.
We wish this symbiosis is sustained as well as acknowledged. How else
to do that than GNU+Linux?
See above. The problem with GNU/Linux is that it excludes everyone else.
There has been an immense contribution from BSD, MPL, Apache,
Artistic and other licenses in the code which makes Linux useful. So we
either acknowledge them all, or none of them.
why not, we do have GNU/NetBSD, GNU/KfreeBSD. Mozilla, and Apache are
application projects therefore donot fit to be called operating
GNU at the moment _is_ userland. GNU/BSD is applicable because it
replaces significant parts of the default BSD userland with GNU tools,
and the GNU/ is a warning to users that the userland has changed.
You might also note the existence of freebsd-* and netbsd-* packages in
the Gentoo portage tree. Those are for Gentoo/BSD.

This is not the case with Linux. GNU tools sit at the same status as other
applications. For most people, the GNU tools don't even matter, they run
other applications. Most of the userland tools can be replaced with
busybox too.
Post by Nagarjuna G.
systems. We dont give all the application names in the operating
system. They are very useful parts of the full system, just as bash,
emacs, GNOME, KDE, OpenOffice.org etc. are. You are trying to read it
as a licensing issue, it is not.
I am not. I am reading it specifically as a branding issue, where the
FSF is actually losing ground by insisting on the term GNU/Linux. No one
part of the userland should claim dominance over the whole.
Post by Nagarjuna G.
GNU community did untiringly requested all other licenses to make them
compatible with GPL, or dual license them, in the interest of user's
freedom. Lot of projects do this, e.g. openoffice.org, Perl. Several
projects' licenses have been modified, and became compatible with GPL,
eg. ZPL, PPL, APL. But, it is unfortunate that people read this
interest as FSF's interest, as if FSF's interest is not in their
interest. But, why not work in favor of FSF's interest, if FSF's
agenda is to protect your and my freedom. When we are requesting
people to adopt GPLv3, it is not to snatch anything from from you, but
to prevent it from getting snatched.
And I am not doing anything to oppose the adoption of GPLv3. I may even
release code under the GPLv3.

Devdas Bhagat
Nagarjuna G.
2006-10-11 10:41:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Devdas Bhagat
This is not the case with Linux. GNU tools sit at the same status as other
applications. For most people, the GNU tools don't even matter, they run
other applications. Most of the userland tools can be replaced with
busybox too.
Busybox doesn't give you a compiler, libraries. I dont agree that GNU
sits with other applications. Other applications don't exist without
GNU. *Can you explain how they can exist without GNU?* If this
dependency is claimed falsely, I will correct myself. In fact most of
the applications, including GNU exist without Linux, because they can
depend on other kernels.
Post by Devdas Bhagat
I am not. I am reading it specifically as a branding issue, where the
FSF is actually losing ground by insisting on the term GNU/Linux. No one
part of the userland should claim dominance over the whole.
Your perception that GNU is userland is dubious. In order to prove
otherwise, you have to explain the above question.

Nagarjuna
Devdas Bhagat
2006-10-11 10:56:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nagarjuna G.
Post by Devdas Bhagat
This is not the case with Linux. GNU tools sit at the same status as other
applications. For most people, the GNU tools don't even matter, they run
other applications. Most of the userland tools can be replaced with
busybox too.
Busybox doesn't give you a compiler, libraries. I dont agree that GNU
sits with other applications. Other applications don't exist without
BSD. They require gcc, but everything else is non GNU. As far as I am
concerned, GNU is _one_ component of my system. A lot of other
components use the GNU toolchain to exist, but practically, if those
applications didn't exist, I might as well not use the computer.

So me crediting just GNU would be wrong.
IBM/QT/Apache/Artistic/Mozilla/X/BSD/GNU/Linux would be acceptable (off
the top of my head, those are the licenses used by software on my
system).
Post by Nagarjuna G.
GNU. *Can you explain how they can exist without GNU?* If this
dependency is claimed falsely, I will correct myself. In fact most of
the applications, including GNU exist without Linux, because they can
depend on other kernels.
As I said, they are userland. And if GNU gets credit, everyone else who
makes my desktop experience useful gets credit too.
Post by Nagarjuna G.
Post by Devdas Bhagat
I am not. I am reading it specifically as a branding issue, where the
FSF is actually losing ground by insisting on the term GNU/Linux. No one
part of the userland should claim dominance over the whole.
Your perception that GNU is userland is dubious. In order to prove
otherwise, you have to explain the above question.
Everything that is not kernelspace is userland. This includes libc. As
the GNU folks themselves say, Linux by itself is just a kernel.

Devdas Bhagat
Kenneth Gonsalves
2006-10-11 11:20:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Devdas Bhagat
IBM/QT/Apache/Artistic/Mozilla/X/BSD/GNU/Linux
QAMBAXGI/Linux

or

QamBaxGiLinux - cool
--
regards

Kenneth Gonsalves
Associate, NRC-FOSS
***@au-kbc.org
http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/
Dinesh Joshi
2006-10-11 17:03:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kenneth Gonsalves
Post by Devdas Bhagat
IBM/QT/Apache/Artistic/Mozilla/X/BSD/GNU/Linux
QAMBAXGI/Linux
or
QamBaxGiLinux - cool
while i find this funny. i sincerely request people to stop weering off.
Its hard to keep track of whats going on in this list :P
--
Dinesh A. Joshi
Nagarjuna G.
2006-10-11 11:51:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Devdas Bhagat
BSD. They require gcc, but everything else is non GNU. As far as I am
concerned, GNU is _one_ component of my system. A lot of other
components use the GNU toolchain to exist, but practically, if those
applications didn't exist, I might as well not use the computer.
that is the point. if those application dont exist without GNU, and
there is nothing left useful for you on the computer without it, you
have proved that GNU is indispensable. However, this is true only if
you want to stick to free software. Otherwise GNU is dispensible
anyway.
Post by Devdas Bhagat
So me crediting just GNU would be wrong.
IBM/QT/Apache/Artistic/Mozilla/X/BSD/GNU/Linux would be acceptable (off
the top of my head, those are the licenses used by software on my
system).
You are diverting the attention to licenses again. What about all
those things that are listed above, do they not depend on gcc for
their *free* existence? You may compile them with a non-free ANSI-C
compiler, to demonstrate to me that GCC is dispensible. In order to
show me your independence from GNU you became dependent on a
proprietary thing. That is why I said, GNU is a core contribution
for the existence of free software, whatever be the licenses they are
all released. This dependency is also for the Linux kernel, and other
free kernels. As most of you know C is the core of any Unix. They are
born together.

This dependency is a factual relation, it is either true or not. Why
hesitate to tell the truth? It is possible to write a program,
release it under some other license, but you are still depending on
GNU. Licenses dont tell you the dependencies. If the dependency is
true, GNU is the core of the userland, not just one of them. If the
dependency is true, why hesitate to credit the core contribution.

So, my thesis is, dispensing GNU will also take away your freedom.

Nagarjuna
jtd
2006-10-11 12:31:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nagarjuna G.
So, my thesis is, dispensing GNU will also take away your freedom.
IMO it was the fsf and it's core members who understood the dangers of
sidelining the core political nessage and worked resolutely towards
that goal. Inspite of naive arguments to the contrary by tech
luminairs who while riding piggy back on the GNU system and enjoying
the fresh air completely fail to see the whale they are riding on and
the shark infested waters. While it does feel wondeful to think that
linux is technically so superior that it would have won anyway, the
hard reality is that it is continuosly being fenced in - right now.
Linus's no v3 argument is a case in point. While there does exist
several corner cases with v3 that are not to everyone's liking -as is
the case with v2 also - by and large it is in the right direction.
It is these OTHER important things - not technical but political - for
which a GNU/Linux distro should be labeled as such.
The technical semantics of chicken, egg, dna and other fanciful things
can resolve themselves at everbody's leasure.
The political battle cannot.

So for me it's GNU/Linux - chicken, egg, dna, curry, rice etc. will
happen whenever.
--
Rgds
JTD
Aseem Rane
2006-10-11 15:13:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by jtd
IMO it was the fsf and it's core members who understood the dangers of
sidelining the core political nessage and worked resolutely towards
that goal. Inspite of naive arguments to the contrary by tech
luminairs who while riding piggy back on the GNU system and enjoying
the fresh air completely fail to see the whale they are riding on and
the shark infested waters.
<snip>

It is these OTHER important things - not technical but political - for
Post by jtd
which a GNU/Linux distro should be labeled as such.
The technical semantics of chicken, egg, dna and other fanciful things
can resolve themselves at everbody's leasure.
The political battle cannot.
Hats off to jtd for his replies in this thread.
Could not agree more with him on each point.

If the average end user is ignorant about the freedom, then we should
spread the awareness before it is too late.

Linus was proved wrong in the Bitkeeper case.
He *might* be wrong in not adopting GPLv3 as well.

Regards
Aseem
Aseem Rane
2006-10-11 15:13:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by jtd
IMO it was the fsf and it's core members who understood the dangers of
sidelining the core political nessage and worked resolutely towards
that goal. Inspite of naive arguments to the contrary by tech
luminairs who while riding piggy back on the GNU system and enjoying
the fresh air completely fail to see the whale they are riding on and
the shark infested waters.
<snip>

It is these OTHER important things - not technical but political - for
Post by jtd
which a GNU/Linux distro should be labeled as such.
The technical semantics of chicken, egg, dna and other fanciful things
can resolve themselves at everbody's leasure.
The political battle cannot.
Hats off to jtd for his replies in this thread.
Could not agree more with him on each point.

If the average end user is ignorant about the freedom, then we should
spread the awareness before it is too late.

Linus was proved wrong in the Bitkeeper case.
He *might* be wrong in not adopting GPLv3 as well.

Regards
Aseem
Devdas Bhagat
2006-10-11 13:14:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nagarjuna G.
Post by Devdas Bhagat
BSD. They require gcc, but everything else is non GNU. As far as I am
concerned, GNU is _one_ component of my system. A lot of other
components use the GNU toolchain to exist, but practically, if those
applications didn't exist, I might as well not use the computer.
that is the point. if those application dont exist without GNU, and
there is nothing left useful for you on the computer without it, you
have proved that GNU is indispensable. However, this is true only if
you want to stick to free software. Otherwise GNU is dispensible
anyway.
To be very precise, there isn't a Free alternative to gcc yet. If the
GNU folks will continue with the whole GNU/Linux thing, I might just
get bugged enough to write a BSD licensed compiler.
Post by Nagarjuna G.
Post by Devdas Bhagat
So me crediting just GNU would be wrong.
IBM/QT/Apache/Artistic/Mozilla/X/BSD/GNU/Linux would be acceptable (off
the top of my head, those are the licenses used by software on my
system).
You are diverting the attention to licenses again. What about all
But my whole point is that GNU/Linux is pretty much useless to me.
Regardless of how essential gcc is. If the GNU project gets credits,
everyone else deserves the same amount of time.

<snip>
Post by Nagarjuna G.
So, my thesis is, dispensing GNU will also take away your freedom.
Dispensing with the GPL? Definitely. Dispensing with the GNU project?
Right now, other than the compiler, what else do you need to get a full
BSD userland? My thesis is that Linux != GNU/Linux and there are other
projects which deserve equal time in the OS name.

Devdas Bhagat
Faraz Shahbazker
2006-10-11 15:05:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Devdas Bhagat
To be very precise, there isn't a Free alternative to gcc yet. If the
GNU folks will continue with the whole GNU/Linux thing, I might just
get bugged enough to write a BSD licensed compiler.
Thats exactly the kind of aggressive response FSF has been getting
from "Linux" fans. They simply say: "Go write your own kernel!!"
We are not asking you to write your own compiler - you are free to do
so if you want to. But if you are doing it on account of animosity
toward GNU then it is only fair that you should NOT use any GNU tools
to bootstrap your project. Best of luck!!! :-P
Post by Devdas Bhagat
But my whole point is that GNU/Linux is pretty much useless to me.
Regardless of how essential gcc is. If the GNU project gets credits,
everyone else deserves the same amount of time.
Maybe it is useless to *YOU* ... that's your personal opinion and your
free to have one. Is the "GNU/Linux" system useless or is the name
"GNU/Linux" useless? IMO the name is not supposed to have any utility
besides clear and unambiguous denotation. So
Linux == kernel,
GNU == indispensible(but kernel-less) project [excuse HURD]
GNU/Linux == combination of the two where you may[/may not] install a
multitude of useful but dispensible optional software packages
(X/Apache/Mozilla/...)

Note that we are not yet claiming GNU/Linux to be a complete
full-fledged usable system - but it is the foundation on which we
build our grand edifice. So the biggest sinners and the cause of your
confusion are the distros that fudge all components to give a "Linux
distribution". What they are actually serving a combination of various
FLosS components based on the GNU+Linux core ... as against a GNU+Hurd
or GNU+BSD or Linux+BSD-userland core.

Theoretically each component is replacable ... but historically the
GNU-component has contributed more(understatement) towards development
of other parts than they have toward GNU simply because GNU was
created as the enabler on which we can further free software
development. So can we atleast agree that GNU is the first amongst
equals and give it it's rightful place? That would be a good start.
Post by Devdas Bhagat
Dispensing with the GPL? Definitely. Dispensing with the GNU project?
Right now, other than the compiler, what else do you need to get a full
BSD userland?
You are right there ... you need nothing else. So if you do actually
use Linux kernel with the BSD userland on your computer you are free
to call it Linux or whatever else you choose ... we have absolutely no
objections. Infact we'll graciously allow you to use [only] our
compiler and still continue to call in Linux :-)

. farazs
Devdas Bhagat
2006-10-11 15:47:26 UTC
Permalink
On 11/10/06 20:35 +0530, Faraz Shahbazker wrote:
<snip>
Post by Faraz Shahbazker
toward GNU then it is only fair that you should NOT use any GNU tools
to bootstrap your project. Best of luck!!! :-P
As RMS put it, it was necessary to use closed source tools to write
emacs initially.
Post by Faraz Shahbazker
Post by Devdas Bhagat
But my whole point is that GNU/Linux is pretty much useless to me.
Regardless of how essential gcc is. If the GNU project gets credits,
everyone else deserves the same amount of time.
Maybe it is useless to *YOU* ... that's your personal opinion and your
free to have one. Is the "GNU/Linux" system useless or is the name
A pure GNU/Linux system wouldn't be very useful, unless I was to write a
lot of software myself.
Post by Faraz Shahbazker
"GNU/Linux" useless? IMO the name is not supposed to have any utility
besides clear and unambiguous denotation. So
The name GNU/Linux gives credit to one important entity in userland. My
principles require that either all components I consider important be
given that credit, or none.
Post by Faraz Shahbazker
Linux == kernel,
GNU == indispensible(but kernel-less) project [excuse HURD]
Pssst. gcc is about the only indispensible component. All the rest are
dispensible.

<snip>
Post by Faraz Shahbazker
development. So can we atleast agree that GNU is the first amongst
equals and give it it's rightful place? That would be a good start.
And no one would deny them the credit for initiating the Free Software
movement. But on my system, there is _no_ first among equals. There is
root, and then there are the mortals. There is the kernel, and then
there is the userland.

Seriously, you would be better off trying to make the world understasnd
why the GPL is better than the BSD license than trying to market the GNU
foundation with the GNU/Linux thing. It would have been different if
Linus had handed over copyright to the FSF, or if the involvement of the
FSF had been more.

And now, if you will excuse me, I have some code to write.

Devdas Bhagat
Faraz Shahbazker
2006-10-12 08:17:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Devdas Bhagat
<snip>
Post by Faraz Shahbazker
toward GNU then it is only fair that you should NOT use any GNU tools
to bootstrap your project. Best of luck!!! :-P
As RMS put it, it was necessary to use closed source tools to write
emacs initially.
Touche :-)
Post by Devdas Bhagat
A pure GNU/Linux system wouldn't be very useful, unless I was to write a
lot of software myself.
By definition that is exactly what forms an "Operating System" . The
rest are applications. Once again the boundaries may be blurred for
YOU becoz the distro packages everything together.

eg. say I don't need X or apache / (never use KDE anyway) / and I am
prepared to use w3(GNU) instead of Firefox. Now with a few small
applications which may [not] not fall under any particular large
project, I still have a usable system.

Try recreating the above scenario without glibc/binutils/coreutils (or
any replacement thereof) and see what you get. Note that I've not even
mentioned gcc since a user may not want to do any programming at all.
Post by Devdas Bhagat
Post by Faraz Shahbazker
Linux == kernel,
GNU == indispensible(but kernel-less) project [excuse HURD]
Pssst. gcc is about the only indispensible component. All the rest are
dispensible.
You are wrongly equating "dispensible" with "replacable". We are not
saying that you cannot replace GNU, but that without GNU or any
equivalent replacement there would be no system to use inspite of all
other large contributors. And now, since you are using GNU and not
some equivalent replacement you should acknowledge as much.
Post by Devdas Bhagat
And no one would deny them the credit for initiating the Free Software
movement. But on my system, there is _no_ first among equals. There is
root, and then there are the mortals. There is the kernel, and then
there is the userland.
If by root you mean Operating System, then see the difference between
a kernel and what constitutes an Operating System.
Post by Devdas Bhagat
It would have been different if Linus had handed over copyright to the FSF, or if the
involvement of the FSF had been more.
Once again, were not claiming kernel ownership, so we need not have
been involved in kernel development. Moot point

. farazs
Devdas Bhagat
2006-10-12 10:04:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Faraz Shahbazker
Post by Devdas Bhagat
<snip>
Post by Faraz Shahbazker
toward GNU then it is only fair that you should NOT use any GNU tools
to bootstrap your project. Best of luck!!! :-P
As RMS put it, it was necessary to use closed source tools to write
emacs initially.
Touche :-)
Post by Devdas Bhagat
A pure GNU/Linux system wouldn't be very useful, unless I was to write a
lot of software myself.
By definition that is exactly what forms an "Operating System" . The
rest are applications. Once again the boundaries may be blurred for
YOU becoz the distro packages everything together.
Errr, gcc is just another application. What part of userland and
kernelspace distinction do you refuse to understand?
Post by Faraz Shahbazker
eg. say I don't need X or apache / (never use KDE anyway) / and I am
prepared to use w3(GNU) instead of Firefox. Now with a few small
applications which may [not] not fall under any particular large
project, I still have a usable system.
It may work for you, it doesn't work for me.
Post by Faraz Shahbazker
Try recreating the above scenario without glibc/binutils/coreutils (or
any replacement thereof) and see what you get. Note that I've not even
Uhm, BSD? <confused>
Post by Faraz Shahbazker
mentioned gcc since a user may not want to do any programming at all.
Post by Devdas Bhagat
Post by Faraz Shahbazker
Linux == kernel,
GNU == indispensible(but kernel-less) project [excuse HURD]
Pssst. gcc is about the only indispensible component. All the rest are
dispensible.
You are wrongly equating "dispensible" with "replacable". We are not
saying that you cannot replace GNU, but that without GNU or any
equivalent replacement there would be no system to use inspite of all
other large contributors. And now, since you are using GNU and not
some equivalent replacement you should acknowledge as much.
Fine,
Mozilla/Apache/OpenOffice.org/Trolltech/KDE/WindowMaker/BSD/PostgreSQL/GNU/Linux.
Post by Faraz Shahbazker
Post by Devdas Bhagat
And no one would deny them the credit for initiating the Free Software
movement. But on my system, there is _no_ first among equals. There is
root, and then there are the mortals. There is the kernel, and then
there is the userland.
If by root you mean Operating System, then see the difference between
a kernel and what constitutes an Operating System.
root is UID 0. Define Operating system. By Microsoft's definition, a
browser and media player are essential parts of an operating system.

Devdas Bhagat
Faraz Shahbazker
2006-10-12 12:14:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Devdas Bhagat
Post by Faraz Shahbazker
Try recreating the above scenario without glibc/binutils/coreutils (or
any replacement thereof) and see what you get. Note that I've not even
Uhm, BSD? <confused>
Uhm "any replacement thereof"? ... clearly there seems to be a
language problem! Dunno where to go from here - so I guess I'll follow
your advice and take up more fruitful pursuits.

Anyway thanks for a good joust :-)

.farazs
Anurag
2006-10-11 18:12:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Faraz Shahbazker
Theoretically each component is replacable ... but historically the
GNU-component has contributed more(understatement) towards development
of other parts than they have toward GNU simply because GNU was
created as the enabler on which we can further free software
development. So can we atleast agree that GNU is the first amongst
equals and give it it's rightful place? That would be a good start.
Its only the GNU Project talks the most about ``Software Freedom''. While
there are several important projects that make up the current usable
operating system, none of them talk about Software Freedom as vocally as GNU
does.

Anurag
--
__ __
gnu /noo/ n. Ox like antelope; (abbr.) /gnoo/ n.
(recursive acronym) Gnu's Not Unix.
Philip Tellis
2006-10-13 06:57:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Faraz Shahbazker
"GNU/Linux" useless? IMO the name is not supposed to have any utility
besides clear and unambiguous denotation. So
The name is an identifier. It must be chosen based on advertising and
marketing needs. This is why most names are trademarked - to protect
against others using the same name.

Attribution is not a property of the name.

It is not necessary that all persons/entities involved in producing the
application be credited in its name. That's what the
CREDITS/Acknowledgements/Licence files are for.

Many products have failed simply because they picked a name that didn't
roll off of people's tongues. If word of mouth marketing isn't going to
work, it will be very hard to sell your product.

While the FSF's message is important, it can only be used to sell the
product to a subset of all potential clients. Different markets require
different marketing strategies. Just like you wouldn't use the same
strategy in India and Mexico, so also you cannot use the same marketing
strategy to people who understand freedom and to those who don't care.
--
"Been through Hell? Whaddya bring back for me?"
-- A. Brilliant
Kenneth Gonsalves
2006-10-13 07:13:21 UTC
Permalink
so also you cannot use the same marketing strategy to people who
understand freedom and to those who don't care.
this should read as 'to people who understand freedom and to those
who are yet to understand freedom'. Those who understand freedom and
dont care should be quietly sent to the great /dev/null in the sky.
--
regards

Kenneth Gonsalves
Associate, NRC-FOSS
***@au-kbc.org
http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/
Philip Tellis
2006-10-13 08:58:45 UTC
Permalink
yet to understand freedom'. Those who understand freedom and dont care should
be quietly sent to the great /dev/null in the sky.
That would be an alternative way to serve total world domination?
--
Cobol programmers are down in the dumps.
Kenneth Gonsalves
2006-10-13 10:12:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Philip Tellis
yet to understand freedom'. Those who understand freedom and dont
care should be quietly sent to the great /dev/null in the sky.
That would be an alternative way to serve total world domination?
this particular remark was not confined merely to the domain of software
--
regards

Kenneth Gonsalves
Associate, NRC-FOSS
***@au-kbc.org
http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/
Roshan
2006-10-08 12:03:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Philip Tellis
http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/9/25/161
Interesting insights about licencing of the kernel.
Seems as if the FSF gained a control over Linus and
forced the name GNU/Linux.

What RMS said in his public lecture was, that they had
to build an operating system and they had started
developing components for it. They were left alone
without the kernel and luckily, they could find Linus,
who was ready to give away the source code of the
kernel he developed. Therefore, the GNU project was
successful in completion of an Operating System with
Linux as its kernel.

I had always thought of any Linux distro, the entire
operating system, as GNU/Linux and Linux as the kernel
of this OS. GNU/Linux because, most of the the
application programs that I used were "FREE" software.

For newbies like me, the above mentioned link would
resort to more discussions and arguments over an
active mailing list like GLUG-BOM!



__________________________________________________________
Yahoo! India Answers: Share what you know. Learn something new
http://in.answers.yahoo.com/
Philip Tellis
2006-10-08 12:19:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roshan
resort to more discussions and arguments over an
active mailing list like GLUG-BOM!
Ilug-bom traffic levels are reasonably low.
Dinesh Joshi
2006-10-08 13:21:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roshan
Seems as if the FSF gained a control over Linus and
forced the name GNU/Linux.
Someone wise has said - "Whats in a name?". I think the FOSS should
invest more time in developing a better, friendlier UI than fighting
over what Linux should be called!
--
Regards,
Dinesh A. Joshi
mehul
2006-10-08 13:52:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dinesh Joshi
Someone wise has said - "Whats in a name?". I think the FOSS should
invest more time in developing a better, friendlier UI than fighting
over what Linux should be called!
Just the other day there was talk that FLOSS needs good marketing.
And brand name is an very essential part of marketing. Marketing the
OS as Linux puts it in quite different light than marketing it as GNU/Linux.
Dinesh Shah
2006-10-08 16:01:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by mehul
Just the other day there was talk that FLOSS needs good marketing.
And brand name is an very essential part of marketing. Marketing the
OS as Linux puts it in quite different light than marketing it as GNU/Linux.
Exactly the point... Linux has far higher "recall value" then
GNU/Linux. :-) Those who are in FOSS for some time may know that Linux
is just a kernel but the people at large refer the system as Linux.

With regards,
--
--Dinesh Shah :-)
പ്രവീണ്‍‌|Praveen
2006-10-08 16:37:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Philip Tellis
http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/9/25/161
Interesting insights about licencing of the kernel.
Some time back Bruce Perens (the man who wrote the open source definition
and co-founded the Open Source Initiative) suggested GPLv3 for Linux Kernel
http://lwn.net/Articles/200656/

"Ultimately, we need to recognize that Linux is a 15-year-old kernel and
that there will be another technical development to superscede it
eventually. I can't say what that will be, but I think the best chance of
mobilizing individual contribution to it would be to use GPL 3."
--
"Value your freedom, or you will lose it, teaches history.
`Don't bother us with politics', respond those who don't want to learn."
-- Richard Stallman
Me scribbles at http://www.pravi.co.nr
Philip Tellis
2006-10-08 17:01:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by പ്രവീണ്‍‌|Praveen
Some time back Bruce Perens (the man who wrote the open source definition
and co-founded the Open Source Initiative) suggested GPLv3 for Linux Kernel
http://lwn.net/Articles/200656/
I believe Linus' article was in response to someone's request for a poll
about moving linux to the GPLv3
പ്രവീണ്‍‌|Praveen
2006-10-08 17:17:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Philip Tellis
I believe Linus' article was in response to someone's request for a poll
about moving linux to the GPLv3
Hmm, I should have written "some days back" rather than "some time back"
:-) It was surely not a response to this comment but I thought was
interesting in this thread.
--
"Value your freedom, or you will lose it, teaches history.
`Don't bother us with politics', respond those who don't want to learn."
-- Richard Stallman
Me scribbles at http://www.pravi.co.nr
Dinesh Shah
2006-10-08 09:19:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Philip Tellis
http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/9/25/161
Interesting insights about licencing of the kernel.
Indeed... The question is can software be used for activism? and even
bigger question is should it be used for activism?

With regards,
--
--Dinesh Shah :-)
Abhishek Choudhary
2006-10-10 16:53:21 UTC
Permalink
Well why not "Linux/GNU" instead of "GNU/Linux"? Is it some age factor? :)

All right, if you use Hurd then probably only GNU or Hurd/GNU! To be
clear, show me one machine that runs vanilla "GNU". Amusing right - you
might think I am a novice who does not know why one needs a kernel! If
_you_ do understand the need for a kernel then why emphasize that GNU is
an "Operating System" instead of claiming it to be what it actually is - a
wonderful "toolchain".

If it is the concept of userland / toolchain / original credit then let it
be "Linux/GNU". The Linux kernel, and probably even the BSD kernels, have
had a major role to play in making the "GNU" userland available to non-
techie users - lets say non computer scientists. So ultimately what FSF is
trying to emphasize is probably that even though your machines' resources
are being handled by Linux or some other kernel, it is actually the GNU
tool chain that the user is using right from the level of the shell (GNU
bash). Well then GNU is indeed dependent on Linux, just as the latter is
dependent on it. Lets call a chair a chair and a table a table.

Now, if you are even slightly convinced read on, or else send in a deluge
of bandwidth blocking replies which ultimately serve no purpose towards
user empowerment, without reading any further.

Lets get things clear and straight - I am one of the greatest fans of RMS.
Being a compilers enthusiast myself RMS is like a God considering his
contributions begining with Bison and the GPL philosophy. Yes the GPL
philosophy and just the license. And that philosophy is "freedom".

Then why does GPL tend to restrict it? Why are non-English versions of GPL
not officially available? (correct me if this is novice Q) Why does GPL
not address the issues regarding localisation? Why does GPL take away ones
rights to actually write prorietary code derived from it? (Forgive me if I
have touched on a painful nerve) There are numerous commercial software
vendors who use GNU software in their commercial stuff. For instance HP-
UX. All of us who have used it know the extent to which GNU is a part of
HP-UX. It suits HP's model. They are a hardware vendor, and make money
from hardware more than they do from software. However, think of a small
time developer. An individual who has his aspiations, dreams, wishes, and
a word in his heart which reads like "freedom". If he were to develop a
very niche piece of software, he would be forced to make public his source
code because he cannot use commercial tool-chain, and is therefore left
with GNU, which implies his code falls under the GPL license. Now whose
freedom are we talking about??? The big companies who will not waste any
time in consuming his code into their commercial software. (Ah well - I
have heard that "joke" about every software gets its economic worth! It
happens in a developed nation but not where people cut short a day's meal
to one, or maybe fast, to pay their computer institute fees.)

Please! Lets talk freedom - freedom as in free, lest freedom becomes the
next f-word! Look at the 95% of our population to whom all of this
discussion just does not make any sense. No not because it is not
relevant, but because it is in English! Just as a piece of _information_,
the Indian copyright laws give the copyright to the translator if the
original author did not publish the Indian language version of her work.
The time probably is not far when this 95% super-majority will get tired
of our useless musings and revolt, and convert the existing GNU source
code to Indic programming languages, and yes get the copyright. Get
it!!!!!! Still not. Come on get down to producing some real work now.
Probably instead of keying in useless comments and counter comments,
concentrate on keying in at least a few lines of code. You will certainly
be helping FSF a lot more that way. And indeed if you also do something
for the 95% (which many of you involved in Indic localisation are actually
doing), then trust me you will also have done a lot of good
towards "Freedom".

Regards,
Abhishek
Nagarjuna G.
2006-10-11 10:14:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Abhishek Choudhary
Well why not "Linux/GNU" instead of "GNU/Linux"? Is it some age factor? :)
All right, if you use Hurd then probably only GNU or Hurd/GNU! To be
clear, show me one machine that runs vanilla "GNU". Amusing right - you
might think I am a novice who does not know why one needs a kernel! If
_you_ do understand the need for a kernel then why emphasize that GNU is
an "Operating System" instead of claiming it to be what it actually is - a
wonderful "toolchain".
GNU is an operating system, and that is why the prooject talks of
everything:kernel+userland+toolchain+desktop etc., GNU project is a
comprehensive project. The kernel is still taking the first steps,
falling now and then, the toddler way. This project did not start
now, but in 1984. Why do you say it is JUST a tool chain, when you
know that without it no free software can be made, maintained and
distributed free. If you use 'JUST a x' to a dispensable thing, you
may be right. Prove that it is dispensable. Kernel is indispensable,
so we embrace all free kernels.
Post by Abhishek Choudhary
Well then GNU is indeed dependent on Linux, just as the latter is
dependent on it. Lets call a chair a chair and a table a table.
that is why I called it symbiosis. we are not those who excluded it,
the others did so. So tell them dependable core things cannot be
excluded.
Post by Abhishek Choudhary
Then why does GPL tend to restrict it? Why are non-English versions of GPL
not officially available? (correct me if this is novice Q) Why does GPL
not address the issues regarding localisation? Why does GPL take away ones
rights to actually write prorietary code derived from it?
Suicidal! Because, that kills freedom of others, and does not preserve
the existing freedom. If we dont preserve existing GPL code, it does
not stay, grow, multiply, and inherit. The restriction in GPL is
intended to protect freedom from evaporating. Invention of copyleft
is one of the greatest hacks of the last century, which made all this
possible. Growth of freedom is possible only in a copyleft culture.
In short, to protect the freedom.
Post by Abhishek Choudhary
(Forgive me if I
have touched on a painful nerve) There are numerous commercial software
vendors who use GNU software in their commercial stuff. For instance HP-
UX. All of us who have used it know the extent to which GNU is a part of
HP-UX. It suits HP's model. They are a hardware vendor, and make money
from hardware more than they do from software. However, think of a small
time developer. An individual who has his aspiations, dreams, wishes, and
a word in his heart which reads like "freedom". If he were to develop a
very niche piece of software, he would be forced to make public his source
code because he cannot use commercial tool-chain, and is therefore left
with GNU, which implies his code falls under the GPL license. Now whose
freedom are we talking about???
I am not clear. If he is the original author of the program, then he
is free to decide. Please read
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
Post by Abhishek Choudhary
Please! Lets talk freedom - freedom as in free, lest freedom becomes the
next f-word! Look at the 95% of our population to whom all of this
discussion just does not make any sense. No not because it is not
relevant, but because it is in English!
That is why, let us work hard to localize all applications to Indian
languages, then 65% people will have potential access.
Post by Abhishek Choudhary
it!!!!!! Still not. Come on get down to producing some real work now.
Probably instead of keying in useless comments and counter comments,
concentrate on keying in at least a few lines of code. You will certainly
be helping FSF a lot more that way. And indeed if you also do something
for the 95% (which many of you involved in Indic localisation are actually
doing), then trust me you will also have done a lot of good
towards "Freedom".
You are right, that is why I contribute to Indic-computing, as well as
to another GNU project (GNOWSYS). Other projects that I contribute to
are gnowledge.org, gnoware.org, the Indic fonts (Gargi, Samyak) and
supervising several others. There are others in this list too who are
active contributors.

True, working is more fun.

Nagarjuna
പ്രവീണ്‍‌|Praveen
2006-10-11 11:43:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Abhishek Choudhary
All right, if you use Hurd then probably only GNU or Hurd/GNU! To be
clear, show me one machine that runs vanilla "GNU".
lily.nipl.net (you can get shell access) see nipl.net
--
"Value your freedom, or you will lose it, teaches history.
`Don't bother us with politics', respond those who don't want to learn."
-- Richard Stallman
Me scribbles at http://www.pravi.co.nr
krishnakant Mane
2006-10-12 17:49:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nagarjuna G.
GNU is an operating system, and that is why the prooject talks of
everything:kernel+userland+toolchain+desktop etc., GNU project is a
comprehensive project. The kernel is still taking the first steps,
falling now and then, the toddler way. This project did not start
now, but in 1984. Why do you say it is JUST a tool chain, when you
know that without it no free software can be made, maintained and
distributed free. If you use 'JUST a x' to a dispensable thing, you
may be right. Prove that it is dispensable. Kernel is indispensable,
so we embrace all free kernels.
and so we give due respect to linux by calling an operating system
gnu/linux. because it can work with another kernel but since we like
to give due credit to the great efords of linus, we call gnu OS as
gnu/linux. the very fact that being an operating system we make
reference to the kernel as a credit must be appreciated. and don't
forget linux is compiled with gnu c compiler or gcc for short. and
what is make?
Post by Nagarjuna G.
Post by Abhishek Choudhary
Well then GNU is indeed dependent on Linux, just as the latter is
dependent on it. Lets call a chair a chair and a table a table.
that is why I called it symbiosis. we are not those who excluded it,
the others did so. So tell them dependable core things cannot be
excluded.
indeed that's the way it should be. gnu/linux or linux/gnu, it is one
and the same till you realise that kernel is made for an operating
system, operating system is not made for a kernel. therefore
gnu/linux.
Post by Nagarjuna G.
Post by Abhishek Choudhary
Then why does GPL te> (Forgive me if I
have touched on a painful nerve) There are numerous commercial software
vendors who use GNU software in their commercial stuff. For instance HP-
UX. All of us who have used it know the extent to which GNU is a part of
HP-UX. It suits HP's model. They are a hardware vendor, and make money
from hardware more than they do from software. However, think of a small
time developer. An individual who has his aspiations, dreams, wishes, and
a word in his heart which reads like "freedom". If he were to develop a
very niche piece of software, he would be forced to make public his source
code because he cannot use commercial tool-chain, and is therefore left
with GNU, which implies his code falls under the GPL license. Now whose
freedom are we talking about???
I am not clear. If he is the original author of the program, then he
is free to decide. Please read
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
and one more point, how many people using the software in this case
are going to be programmers or even software venders? how many can
even customise it them selves even though they are programmers? and
who says you can't charge for the copies? if some one else puts it on
the web as is, it is nothing but a advertise of that software for
free. just think, if software is closed source and is pyrated, will
the customer have any rights to claim support from you? but when the
software is open sourced, your support of customisations apply to each
and every user. if you want to call free software business a service
based, then so be it. but here the scope of you as a software
developer giving service and earning is more, because there is no un
official customer using non supported pyrated software.
Post by Nagarjuna G.
Post by Abhishek Choudhary
it!!!!!! Still not. Come on get down to producing some real work now.
Probably instead of keying in useless comments and counter comments,
concentrate on keying in at least a few lines of code. You will certainly
be helping FSF a lot more that way. And indeed if you also do something
for the 95% (which many of you involved in Indic localisation are actually
doing), then trust me you will also have done a lot of good
towards "Freedom".
You are right, that is why I contribute to Indic-computing, as well as
to another GNU project (GNOWSYS). Other projects that I contribute to
are gnowledge.org, gnoware.org, the Indic fonts (Gargi, Samyak) and
supervising several others. There are others in this list too who are
active contributors.
oh, one of the active contributers is right now writing reply to this
thread. sorry to be a bit personal. but first of all don't just
asumingly point fingers at just about any one whom you don't really
know. and talking about "getting down to keying in some lines of
code". I have seen the work of "Dr." Nagarjuna and know him
personally. he not only contributes in developing great free software
but also contributes socially to fsf by pointing people to the right
software for the right task. I personally had this experience. while
talking about contributing to gnosys, he may have perhaps remembered
me *smile*. so please have a detailed study of a persons work before
saying "get down to coding etc".
Post by Nagarjuna G.
True, working is more fun.
very true sir.
regards.
Krishnakant.
Debarshi 'Rishi' Ray
2006-10-11 21:31:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mrugesh Karnik
Linux said, "Authors matter." By using the term GNU/Linux, it seems as
though Linux is just a part of the GNU project. It is not. Just because
someone uses your tools to build their own software does not mean that
you own that software. If you have such issues, don't let people use
the tools.
Please show me one GNU hacker who has said Linux belongs to GNU, or
GNU owns Linux. If you can not, then tender an apology.
Post by Mrugesh Karnik
What I hate about you FSF people is that you try and steal credit. You
just said the same thing again... Use GNU in the name? WHY? Make up a
name that highlights freedom, _very very clearly_.
What about this?

"One CD-ROM vendor found that in their ``Linux distribution'', GNU
software was the largest single contingent, around 28% of the total
source code, and this included some of the essential major components
without which there could be no system. Linux itself was about 3%. So
if you were going to pick a name for the system based on who wrote the
programs in the system, the most appropriate single choice would be
``GNU''."

Read http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html for more.

Does Apache and Mozilla come any way near to the contribution of the
GNU Project towards Linux?

Regards,
Debarshi
--
Microsoft does have a Y2K problem... it's called GNU/Linux!
Kenneth Gonsalves
2006-10-12 01:56:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Debarshi 'Rishi' Ray
Does Apache and Mozilla come any way near to the contribution of the
GNU Project towards Linux?
who says any of them contribute towards Linux? All of them contribute
towards FOSS, and i would say that the ASF is a strong contender as
one of the largest contributors along with GNU project.
--
regards

Kenneth Gonsalves
Associate, NRC-FOSS
***@au-kbc.org
http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/
Debarshi 'Rishi' Ray
2006-10-11 21:35:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kenneth Gonsalves
If they want free as in beer - tell them its free as in beer
if they want cheap - tell them its cheap
<snip>
and, if they want freedom - give them that too.
So far, i have yet to meet anyone asking for freedom.
Give me freedom. What is software freedom? Can you tell me more and
more about software freedom? I do not want to know about cheap prices.

Maybe you have now know one person who asked for freedom.

Regards,
Debarshi
--
Microsoft does have a Y2K problem... it's called GNU/Linux!
Kenneth Gonsalves
2006-10-12 01:58:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Debarshi 'Rishi' Ray
Give me freedom. What is software freedom? Can you tell me more and
more about software freedom? I do not want to know about cheap prices.
Maybe you have now know one person who asked for freedom.
that is now - after you learnt about freedom. Look honestly into your
past and ask yourself, who introduced you to FOSS and how.
--
regards

Kenneth Gonsalves
Associate, NRC-FOSS
***@au-kbc.org
http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/
Debarshi 'Rishi' Ray
2006-10-11 21:48:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mrugesh Karnik
Post by Nagarjuna G.
This is just your assumption, who is asking any one to credit GNU for
a non GNU project? The system is indeed GNU system with Linux as a
kernel. When the kernel was completed, the only thing you need is to
add is the GNU system to make it an OS. And the kernel was also
completed using GNU tools. Under such a situation, why do you think
we are asking for a thing that we didn't deserve?
Hehehe. Thank you. Exactly what I needed to hear from an FSF
representative. Now would you be so kind as to make sure everyone who
tries to spread GNU philosophy is clear upon this point?
What do you mean? I think you never needed to hear anything from any
FSF representative. You need to tender an apology. Pray do not start
throwing mud around, and then do a 'hehehe'. Get me one GNU hacker who
said Linux is owned by GNU.
Post by Mrugesh Karnik
I've had arguments with people about this, even during the RMS lecture. Pity,
for the lack of time on RMS' part meant that I couldn't bring up this
issue right there.
Does not mean you level false charges and go 'hehehe'.
Post by Mrugesh Karnik
There goes Vihan's argument from the Andheri BoF. Granted that he did
not mean that GNU owned the kernel, but I suppose he has no right to
"But Linus himself uses GCC to build the kernel.."
Eh? Why can not Vihan say so? Linus Torvalds said he could not have
made Linux without GCC. He does say GCC is used to compile Linux.
Post by Mrugesh Karnik
Yes, well the point is, to a layman, who is completely new to this
world, the word GNU doesn't make any sense.
Ok fine. So what makes sense? Linux? The X factor is it, eh?

For all the reasoning, Linus Torvalds can be labelled as egoistic, if
one went by the anti-FSF lobby. After all Linus named the kernel after
himself, while Stallman never named GCC as 'Stallman Compiler
Collection', Emacs as 'Stallman Editor', and the Free Software
Movement as 'Stallman's Movement', and GNU as 'Stallman is Not
Proprietary'. :-) But many GNU people do think Linux sounds cool, so
why throw mud at GNU?

Regards,
Debarshi
--
Microsoft does have a Y2K problem... it's called GNU/Linux!
Baishampayan Ghose
2006-10-11 22:24:34 UTC
Permalink
On Thursday 12 October 2006 03:18 AM, Debarshi 'Rishi' Ray cobbled
together some glyphs to say:
Debarshi,
Post by Debarshi 'Rishi' Ray
For all the reasoning, Linus Torvalds can be labelled as egoistic, if
one went by the anti-FSF lobby. After all Linus named the kernel after
himself, while Stallman never named GCC as 'Stallman Compiler
Collection', Emacs as 'Stallman Editor', and the Free Software
Movement as 'Stallman's Movement', and GNU as 'Stallman is Not
Proprietary'. :-) But many GNU people do think Linux sounds cool, so
why throw mud at GNU?
I am not trying to support Linus, but FYI, the the name `Linux' was
termed by Ari Lemmke who was the sysadmin of ftp.helsinki.fi where
`Linux' was hosted for the first time.
Linus himself termed it `Freax' (Free + Freak + X from UNIX (TM)) and he
too thought that the term `Linux' was a bit egoistic.
That said, I'd like to affirm that Linus Torvalds _never_ supported the
Free Software movement / philosophy. He himself admitted to using the
GPL as a side-effect of using GNU tools. The first version of `Linux'
was non-free which he later changed to GPL v2.

Regards,
BG

- --
Baishampayan Ghose <***@ubuntu.com>
Ubuntu -- Linux for Human Beings
http://www.ubuntu.com/

1024D/86361B74
BB2C E244 15AD 05C5 523A 90E7 4249 3494 8636 1B74
Devdas Bhagat
2006-10-12 05:39:11 UTC
Permalink
On 11/10/06 21:48 +0000, Debarshi 'Rishi' Ray wrote:
<snip>
Post by Debarshi 'Rishi' Ray
Post by Mrugesh Karnik
"But Linus himself uses GCC to build the kernel.."
Eh? Why can not Vihan say so? Linus Torvalds said he could not have
made Linux without GCC. He does say GCC is used to compile Linux.
Linus used GCC because it was the only free (beer) compiler available to
him on a x86.
Post by Debarshi 'Rishi' Ray
Post by Mrugesh Karnik
Yes, well the point is, to a layman, who is completely new to this
world, the word GNU doesn't make any sense.
Ok fine. So what makes sense? Linux? The X factor is it, eh?
For all the reasoning, Linus Torvalds can be labelled as egoistic, if
one went by the anti-FSF lobby. After all Linus named the kernel after
himself, while Stallman never named GCC as 'Stallman Compiler
Linus didn't name the kernel. He wanted to name it Freenix, the person
sponsoring his hosting put it in a directory named linux (For
Linus' Unix).
Post by Debarshi 'Rishi' Ray
Collection', Emacs as 'Stallman Editor', and the Free Software
Movement as 'Stallman's Movement', and GNU as 'Stallman is Not
Proprietary'. :-) But many GNU people do think Linux sounds cool, so
why throw mud at GNU?
But honestly, we aren't throwing mud at GNU. We are merely refusing to
say GNU/Linux because it makes no sense to us.

Devdas Bhagat
Mrugesh Karnik
2006-10-12 12:51:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Debarshi 'Rishi' Ray
Post by Mrugesh Karnik
Post by Nagarjuna G.
This is just your assumption, who is asking any one to credit GNU
for a non GNU project? The system is indeed GNU system with Linux
as a kernel. When the kernel was completed, the only thing you
need is to add is the GNU system to make it an OS. And the kernel
was also completed using GNU tools. Under such a situation, why
do you think we are asking for a thing that we didn't deserve?
Hehehe. Thank you. Exactly what I needed to hear from an FSF
representative. Now would you be so kind as to make sure everyone
who tries to spread GNU philosophy is clear upon this point?
What do you mean? I think you never needed to hear anything from any
FSF representative. You need to tender an apology. Pray do not start
throwing mud around, and then do a 'hehehe'. Get me one GNU hacker
who said Linux is owned by GNU.
No. No apology in this case. I am not simply throwing mud. It is a fact.
Hence what I said above.. please make sure that all the GNU fans are
clear upon this matter. I was having this argument during RMS' recent
lecture. No apology. I apologise when I think I must. Look at the list
archives for proof of that.

Btw. I never said GNU `hacker'. I said GNU `fans'.
--
----------------------------------------
Mrugesh Karnik
GPG Key 0xBA6F1DA8
Public key on http://wwwkeys.pgp.net
----------------------------------------
Roshan
2006-10-12 03:39:28 UTC
Permalink
<removed all previous posts>
Please do not take this post as sarcasm. It is a
contemplation of the thread.
<begin>
Perhaps, we have exercised our ``freedom of speech'',
to the best of our abilities. There have been only
arguments and no consensus on why 'GNU/Linux' or
'Linux'.

Let us give a new name based on Union in Set Theory in
mathematics acceptable to both, GliNUx, *ONLY FOR THIS
Mailing list* ;-)

--
http://360.yahoo.com/sriram4420




__________________________________________________________
Yahoo! India Answers: Share what you know. Learn something new
http://in.answers.yahoo.com/
Faraz Shahbazker
2006-10-12 04:52:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roshan
Perhaps, we have exercised our ``freedom of speech'',
to the best of our abilities. There have been only
arguments and no consensus on why 'GNU/Linux' or
'Linux'.
Let us give a new name based on Union in Set Theory in
mathematics acceptable to both, GliNUx, *ONLY FOR THIS
Mailing list* ;-)
Isn't that what we've been trying to say all along - in some form or
the other. Unfortunately, one side is desperately trying to reach an
amicable inclusive settlement (atleast as far as this list is
concerned), while the other refuses to budge or even recognize that
there is a problem :-(

. farazs
Kenneth Gonsalves
2006-10-12 06:22:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Faraz Shahbazker
the other. Unfortunately, one side is desperately trying to reach an
amicable inclusive settlement (atleast as far as this list is
concerned), while the other refuses to budge or even recognize that
there is a problem :-(
which is which?
--
regards

Kenneth Gonsalves
Associate, NRC-FOSS
***@au-kbc.org
http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/
Faraz Shahbazker
2006-10-12 07:36:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kenneth Gonsalves
Post by Faraz Shahbazker
the other. Unfortunately, one side is desperately trying to reach an
amicable inclusive settlement (atleast as far as this list is
concerned), while the other refuses to budge or even recognize that
there is a problem :-(
which is which?
Lol - it is clear from the context which someone seems to have
forgetfully removed!!

Infact this is clearly indicative of the entire debate: people
forgetting the context which enabled the creation of a system that
they so proudly use and promote.

.farazs
jtd
2006-10-12 12:19:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kenneth Gonsalves
Post by Faraz Shahbazker
the other. Unfortunately, one side is desperately trying to reach
an amicable inclusive settlement (atleast as far as this list is
concerned), while the other refuses to budge or even recognize
that there is a problem :-(
which is which?
Take your pick. I am sure it's the one and not the other. Which is
better than witch now getting into a twisted WGAi hunt.
--
Rgds
JTD
Gabin Kattukaran
2006-10-12 08:29:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Faraz Shahbazker
Post by Roshan
Perhaps, we have exercised our ``freedom of speech'',
to the best of our abilities. There have been only
arguments and no consensus on why 'GNU/Linux' or
'Linux'.
Let us give a new name based on Union in Set Theory in
mathematics acceptable to both, GliNUx, *ONLY FOR THIS
Mailing list* ;-)
Isn't that what we've been trying to say all along - in some form or
the other. Unfortunately, one side is desperately trying to reach an
amicable inclusive settlement (atleast as far as this list is
concerned), while the other refuses to budge or even recognize that
there is a problem :-(
. farazs
You know, after reading that entire thread, I can't help but think of -
"We are the Borg. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile." -
which until recently was used when referring to another OS.

Why not be really freedom loving and let each one call it what as it
pleases them or haven't you heard that a rose by any other name has just
as many thorns?

-gabin
--
this too shall pass.
Vihan Pandey
2006-10-12 06:08:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Devdas Bhagat
To be very precise, there isn't a Free alternative to gcc yet. If the
GNU folks will continue with the whole GNU/Linux thing, I might just
get bugged enough to write a BSD licensed compiler.
Does that mean you would have absolutely no problem at all in exploitative
corporates taking your hard work, (sometimes) turning it into crap and
making a huge pile of cash on it ?

Talking about freedom and practicing it is not just a momentary thing but
has to be a continuous and perpetual struggle. If we leave the option for
people to take what they want and commercialise it, they will never bother
about freedom and the cause is diminished.

If the restriction of keeping the released work also free is put, it makes
them at least consult lawyers and think on ``Why did this person/group
decide to do things this way ?" and that is the beginning of victory because
you start to make people think about things they otherwise take for granted.
That's the stuff revolutions are made of.

Then of course we are in a philosophical quandary of ``restricting freedom
to preserve freedom". My simple answer to that is, GPL has proved that it
CAN work and IS working.

But my whole point is that GNU/Linux is pretty much useless to me.
Post by Devdas Bhagat
Regardless of how essential gcc is. If the GNU project gets credits,
everyone else deserves the same amount of time.
Hmm... is it not so that in all GNU projects painstaiking efforts are made
to credit every single person who contributed to any project. In fact in the
GNU C manual itself they are about 20 odd pages in the pdf crediting every
person individually with the work they did. This includes BSD guys who did
the BSD ports. This happens irrespective of what the personal beliefs are(i
don't recall seeing a tag near anyone's name stating with GNU or without GNU
:-) )

Therefore when credit is given to a community, it is every single individual
that has worked who is actually credited. Moreover, and correct me if i'm
wrong, but GNU was the first movement to credit every person involved with a
software project in a public manner.

Dispensing with the GPL? Definitely. Dispensing with the GNU project?
Post by Devdas Bhagat
Right now, other than the compiler, what else do you need to get a full
BSD userland? My thesis is that Linux != GNU/Linux and there are other
projects which deserve equal time in the OS name.
If you truely feel that way and are passionate about freedom, you could
start a movement to do the same telling people that ``Zero restriction
freedom is true freedom" and you could also perhaps call it GING(GING Is Not
GNU) if you are not fond of G's, but love B's you could call it BING(BING Is
Not GNU) which actually sounds quite neat :-)

Regards,

- vihan
Devdas Bhagat
2006-10-12 06:28:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vihan Pandey
Post by Devdas Bhagat
To be very precise, there isn't a Free alternative to gcc yet. If the
GNU folks will continue with the whole GNU/Linux thing, I might just
get bugged enough to write a BSD licensed compiler.
Does that mean you would have absolutely no problem at all in exploitative
corporates taking your hard work, (sometimes) turning it into crap and
making a huge pile of cash on it ?
No. I use enough BSD licensed software to know how the BSD community works.
Given the popularity of web services, DRM and closed hardware (how many people
here use nvidia's drivers?), I don't really the GPLv2 as giving a
specific advantage to end users. The one way to get around the
requirements for distributing source is not to distribute it at all, but
only provide public APIs (or protocols) to allow access to your code.
Post by Vihan Pandey
Talking about freedom and practicing it is not just a momentary thing but
has to be a continuous and perpetual struggle. If we leave the option for
people to take what they want and commercialise it, they will never bother
about freedom and the cause is diminished.
Please note that I have no issues with commercialising code. Nor does
the FSF. Both of us have issues with closing source for the second level
of users. The _sole_ reason I would be using the BSD license would be
to keep the GNU zealots away.
<snip>
Post by Vihan Pandey
Hmm... is it not so that in all GNU projects painstaiking efforts are made
to credit every single person who contributed to any project. In fact in the
And should I not then give equal credit to every project which has
contributed to my Linux system?
Post by Vihan Pandey
GNU C manual itself they are about 20 odd pages in the pdf crediting every
person individually with the work they did. This includes BSD guys who did
the BSD ports. This happens irrespective of what the personal beliefs are(i
don't recall seeing a tag near anyone's name stating with GNU or without GNU
:-) )
Therefore when credit is given to a community, it is every single individual
that has worked who is actually credited. Moreover, and correct me if i'm
wrong, but GNU was the first movement to credit every person involved with a
software project in a public manner.
Saying GNU/Linux deprives the other communities of that credit.

Devdas Bhagat
Kenneth Gonsalves
2006-10-12 07:21:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vihan Pandey
Does that mean you would have absolutely no problem at all in
exploitative
corporates taking your hard work, (sometimes) turning it into crap and
making a huge pile of cash on it ?
strange as it may seem to some people, the danger of people
'pirating' software and making more profit than the developer is
practically non-existent. Any moron stupid enough to pirate software
would not have the brains to develop and support it in a better
manner than the original user. (This is different in the case of one
closed source guy pirating anothers). Why pay for a cheap duplicate
when the original is available free and supported by the creator. I
personaly am all for giving anyone the freedom to do anything
whatsoever with my software - because all I am doing is giving him
the freedom to hang himself. And, if i am short of funds i can always
sue him for violation of copyright ;-)
--
regards

Kenneth Gonsalves
Associate, NRC-FOSS
***@au-kbc.org
http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/
jtd
2006-10-12 12:45:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vihan Pandey
Post by Devdas Bhagat
To be very precise, there isn't a Free alternative to gcc yet. If
the GNU folks will continue with the whole GNU/Linux thing, I
might just get bugged enough to write a BSD licensed compiler.
Does that mean you would have absolutely no problem at all in
exploitative corporates taking your hard work, (sometimes) turning
it into crap and making a huge pile of cash on it ?
Such corporates are technically very disadvantaged and wind up on the
rubbish pile after sometime - according to the bsd developers (and i
agree with this logic).
And freedom is freedom even if it is the freedom to shoot others with
your weapon - which imo is rather counter intutive with daily
reality.
--
Rgds
JTD
Vihan Pandey
2006-10-12 08:48:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Devdas Bhagat
No. I use enough BSD licensed software to know how the BSD community
works.
Given the popularity of web services, DRM and closed hardware (how many
people
here use nvidia's drivers?), I don't really the GPLv2 as giving a
specific advantage to end users. The one way to get around the
requirements for distributing source is not to distribute it at all, but
only provide public APIs (or protocols) to allow access to your code.
We NEED to distribute source, just giving away API's sets a bad precedence
for the project. If its an issue of source distribution, have you looked at
Affero GPL ?

Please note that I have no issues with commercialising code. Nor does
Post by Devdas Bhagat
the FSF. Both of us have issues with closing source for the second level
of users. The _sole_ reason I would be using the BSD license would be
to keep the GNU zealots away.
That's not really the right way to go. You have every right to criticize
anyone but releasing software under BSD style license(for freedom) just
because you disagree with/dislike GNU and what it stands for set's a bad
precedent. Moreover you can say what you want, but history is not going to
change because of that. We owe FSF/GNU for starting this value system, lets
not forget that. For whenever man forgets freedom or descends into
callousness, the end result is a tyrannical society which in the end ends up
destroying itself, only to go back to the value system.

And should I not then give equal credit to every project which has
Post by Devdas Bhagat
contributed to my Linux system?
Does that justify calling it "Linux" alone ? If you are are truely
advocating giving credit to everyone call it
GNU/Linux/Apache/_all_other_stuff_you_may_be_using

When your BSD style licensed copiler does get finished and you are NOT AT
ALL using ANY GNU tools nor follow the GNU philosophy. Please call your
system whatever you want. Untill then you cannot simply dismiss GNU.

Saying GNU/Linux deprives the other communities of that credit.


Does that justify calling it "Linux" alone ? If you are are truely
advocating giving credit to everyone call it
GNU/Linux/Apache/_all_other_stuff_you_may_be_using

deja vu . . .

Regards,

- vihan
Devdas Bhagat
2006-10-12 10:07:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vihan Pandey
Post by Devdas Bhagat
No. I use enough BSD licensed software to know how the BSD community
works.
Given the popularity of web services, DRM and closed hardware (how many
people
here use nvidia's drivers?), I don't really the GPLv2 as giving a
specific advantage to end users. The one way to get around the
requirements for distributing source is not to distribute it at all, but
only provide public APIs (or protocols) to allow access to your code.
We NEED to distribute source, just giving away API's sets a bad precedence
for the project. If its an issue of source distribution, have you looked at
Affero GPL ?
Have you seen GPLv3? I am pointing out a specific deficiency in GPL v2,
which is being fixed in v3. Have you ever seen me claim that the GPL is
a bad license?
Post by Vihan Pandey
Please note that I have no issues with commercialising code. Nor does
Post by Devdas Bhagat
the FSF. Both of us have issues with closing source for the second level
of users. The _sole_ reason I would be using the BSD license would be
to keep the GNU zealots away.
That's not really the right way to go. You have every right to criticize
anyone but releasing software under BSD style license(for freedom) just
because you disagree with/dislike GNU and what it stands for set's a bad
precedent. Moreover you can say what you want, but history is not going to
change because of that. We owe FSF/GNU for starting this value system, lets
not forget that. For whenever man forgets freedom or descends into
callousness, the end result is a tyrannical society which in the end ends up
destroying itself, only to go back to the value system.
And should I not then give equal credit to every project which has
Post by Devdas Bhagat
contributed to my Linux system?
Does that justify calling it "Linux" alone ? If you are are truely
advocating giving credit to everyone call it
GNU/Linux/Apache/_all_other_stuff_you_may_be_using
That's a bit too long. I just say Linux.

Devdas Bhagat
Debarshi 'Rishi' Ray
2006-10-13 20:56:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mrugesh Karnik
Post by Debarshi 'Rishi' Ray
Post by Mrugesh Karnik
Hehehe. Thank you. Exactly what I needed to hear from an FSF
representative. Now would you be so kind as to make sure everyone
who tries to spread GNU philosophy is clear upon this point?
What do you mean? I think you never needed to hear anything from any
FSF representative. You need to tender an apology. Pray do not start
throwing mud around, and then do a 'hehehe'. Get me one GNU hacker
who said Linux is owned by GNU.
No. No apology in this case. I am not simply throwing mud. It is a fact.
Hence what I said above.. please make sure that all the GNU fans are
clear upon this matter. I was having this argument during RMS' recent
lecture. No apology. I apologise when I think I must. Look at the list
archives for proof of that.
Can not do it. Internet connection is too slow at the moment. But I
will take your word for it.
Post by Mrugesh Karnik
Btw. I never said GNU `hacker'. I said GNU `fans'.
Define 'fan'. Do not start blaming GNU/FSF/RMS for what a GNU 'fan'
says. Let the fans fan their opinions. FSF/GNU/RMS never claimed Linux
was made by the GNU project although they do appreciate it being
available today under a free software license, and not a proprietary
one.

How can the FSF make sure every one who talks about Software Freedom,
Free Software, GNU is not arrogant, fanatical, etc.? Even Christ and
The Prophet failed to ensure this. I think "it is best to be Christ or
Buddha, than a Christian or a Buddhist".
--
Microsoft does have a Y2K problem... it's called GNU/Linux!
nipra
2006-10-14 05:43:30 UTC
Permalink
Hi,

On 10/14/06, Debarshi 'Rishi' Ray <***@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>
Post by Debarshi 'Rishi' Ray
Post by Mrugesh Karnik
Btw. I never said GNU `hacker'. I said GNU `fans'.
Define 'fan'. Do not start blaming GNU/FSF/RMS for what a GNU 'fan'
says. Let the fans fan their opinions. FSF/GNU/RMS never claimed Linux
was made by the GNU project although they do appreciate it being
available today under a free software license, and not a proprietary
one.
If you are using Debian GNU/Linux, it's very easy to check whether you
are a GNU fan or not. Just type "vrms" on terminal. :-) (Of course
after you have installed "vrms" package). In my case it says,

***@sr05:~$ vrms
No non-free packages installed on sr05! rms would be proud.

Regards
Nikhil Prabhakar
Satya
2006-10-14 15:47:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by nipra
If you are using Debian GNU/Linux, it's very easy to check whether you
are a GNU fan or not. Just type "vrms" on terminal. :-) (Of course
On Ubuntu:
Non-free packages installed on gort

linux-386 Complete Linux kernel on 386.
[rest snipped]
--
Satya. http://www.thesatya.com/
Sorry... my mind has a few bad sectors.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...