4713Re: [Fwd: Re: [TwinCLinG] meeting] Straight from the Horses mouth
- Aug 1, 2001*[Richard Stallman on Tue, Jul 31, 2001 at 12:12:01PM -0600]:
> [Since I can't send mail to the list, would one of you please forward this?]I see Goswami has already forwarded your mail. So I'll just reply
instead of quoting your entire mail - to save bandwidth :)
> All the "Linux distros" are really GNU/Linux distros, because they areThanks for the clarification. My point was that several linuxen have
> versions of the GNU/Linux system. Red Hat is definitely a version of
> GNU/Linux. So is SuSE.
taken an identity which does have a strong GNU base, but is unique in
itself to have a separate identity. Somewhat like a teacher and his
students, or maybe a father and his children.
> It would not shut out anyone who feels included now, becauseWhich was what I was concerned about too.
> practically speaking every "Linux" system is a GNU/Linux system.
> The Red Hat and SuSE distros both include non-free software. In fact,
> all the commercial distros include non-free software. The inclusion
> of non-free software in GNU/Linux distros is a serious problem,
> because it encourages the community to reject freedom as a majorIt is not that way at all. Most - if not all - of us use GPL'd or
> value. The question is how the GNU Project should deal with this
> situation. I see two possibilities:
> 1. Say, "Because you have put non-free software in our system, we
> don't want to be associated with you. So don't call it GNU."
other open sourced licenses when possible, and where such alternatives
exist, despite the fact that someone's offering a commercial product
for a much higher cost. Any code we release / howtos we write etc are
also released under such licenses.
> 2. Say, "You have put non-free software in our system, and that isLinux (in the end-user sense of "a linux distro") has become a slightly
> bad, but we still want people to know that you started with our
> system. So do call it GNU."
more amorphous term than what GNU stands for - and GNU has retained its
identity quite well :)
> You seem to have in mind #1, but #2 is a wiser strategy, because itI don't see that happening in the very near future (especially the part
> gives us a way to influence the users on the issue of freedom. If we
> did #1, we would have no influence on what happens in the community.
> We would be saying "Oh horrors!" but nobody would listen.
> We want all the users to know that Red Hat, SuSE, etc. are versions of
> the GNU system. Then some users will realize that the inclusion of
> non-free software is contrary to the spirit of GNU. Then some of them
> may decide to do something about the situation.
about de-integrating non-free software from most distros, some of which
are actually _increasing_ the emphasis on non-free software).
As I said, we all know about the GPL, and we all use it, as far as
possible, and then encourage people to shift to GNU/GPL'd software from
proprietory alternatives (read: billware, most of the time <g>).
However, we are far from being a GNU/LUG right now :)
> Putting GNU in the name of your group will help with this effort.Which we are already doing, as a matter of fact. However, as linux is
> This won't reject any of your members, but you will start gradually
> steering them and the public in a different direction.
linux, and has definitely gained a separate identity from its GNU
roots, I would (respectfully) disagree with you on this matter.
Suresh Ramasubramanian + suresh (@) kcircle.com
Friday@... + http://www.kcircle.com
- << Previous post in topic