Linux Unix Group

[aoi!richard at ulowell.uml.edu (Richard Royston)]

Following is a note I originally sent to John Abreau, but which I'd like to
share with everyone:

I am very strongly opposed to changing the name of the group to Linux-based
GNU systems.

The principal focus of the group is on the Linux and Unix kernels (not just
Linux), and there are lots of Unix-based (as opposed to Linux-based) GNU
systems in the world; in fact I am using one (a Sun) to write and send this
message.  As I perceive it, the group is also focused on other systems that
support the usage of all tools on the Linux/Unix system, such as X and user
interface packages, and only lastly is it directed towards what tools are
available for it, such as emacs, gcc, etc, and how one gets them installed.
In fact, with due respect to Richard Stallman, I believe the group is to some
extent interested in tools that are neither GNU tools, nor free.  Furthermore
I do not see the group as having a major focus on the details of any of these
last types of tools (free or commercial).

Also, despite Richard Stallman's personal focus on freedom, I do not see this
as one of the foci of the group.  I see that as a (worthy) political goal, but
in my view it would be inappropriate for a BCS group.  I would like to
emphasize that I generally support Stallman's views on freedom, and would be
quite happy to participate in supporting them publicly.  I just don't want
this group to try to be one of the vehicles for it.

In fact, I thought Stallman's proposal to ban everything that was not free
from the world of Linux and Unix inappropriate.  I also think it ill-advised.
We have seen how over-zealousness in the environmental field has brought
about a strong backlash that looks as if it will do a great deal of harm.  I
believe we are in danger of doing the same thing to free software.  My
observation is that more and bigger companies are stopping forbidding the use
of free software, but they are the big batallions, and if we start taking
gratuitous provocative stances against them we (people who are for freedom)
could lose a very great deal for what I regard as no good reason.

I am not sure if there are ways in which one becomes formally involved with
the group, nor how it is organized, nor who the officers are, but I do feel
very strongly on this issue, and I hope the group can give (appropriate, no
more) weight to my views.

Richard Royston