GNU/Linux naming debate

[krose at theory.lcs.mit.edu (Kyle Rose)]

> Arguments based on the contribution of other projects to what make up
> a distribution are largely moot.  Linus has little control over what
> people call Linux distributions.

How does this make those arguments moot?  If anything, this
strengthens the will of people _against_ RMS' insistence that people
call it GNU/Linux, because there is no "official" name.  The following
is an excerpt from a mail I sent to Richard and a few other people who
were discussing this (finally) _off_ the kernel mailing list:

 "I think this is a matter of personal opinion.  I believe -- and I'd
 find it hard for anyone to argue with this -- that the GNU Project
 was instrumental in the development of Linux.  I mean, THIS Linux --
 not theoretical or potential Linuces that would have formed without
 the GNU Project's influence or assistance.

 "That said, there are also many other related projects that, while
 not allowing one to compile the kernel or search through logs or
 return 0 for 'false --help,' have contributed just as much to the
 growth and development of Linux.  This is one potential argument for
 not calling the system GNU/Linux.  Others have shared similar
 arguments.

 "However, for _me_, the choice to call it 'Linux' is based simply on
 preference.  I have always called it Linux; I will always call it
 Linux."

IMHO, the last sentence sums up what most "Linux" supporters _really_
think, regardless of the other reasons they come up with. =)

> UCB/Linux, UCI/Linux, Linux/Athena?  The only thing RMS serves by
> doggedly pursuing this point is to rake his credibility over the
> coals.

Many people -- including myself -- have told him this, and he
continues to persist in doing things like correcting someone every
time they say "Linux" when referring to the operating system.

> I personally think that GNU/Linux should be trademarked to refer to
> Debian specifically and that the GNU license should be ammended to
> require that all commercial packages built against GNU source bear a
> 0.75" x 0.75" FSF logo on the packaging.  It might be worthwile for
> many of the free projects (especially XFree) to consider similar
> branding.

This is one of those undesirable aspects of the BSD license that RMS
was trying to avoid.  BSD-style licenses require that anyone
advertising the product put a line in the advertisement similar to
"This product is based on software written at <organization>," where
<organization> is replaced by whatever the licensor wants to credit.

The problem is that if you combine lots of source code licensed under
BSD-style licenses, these advertisement clauses could potentially take 
up your entire ad!  The same is possible with the FSF logo suggestion, 
and I think RMS would be strongly oppposed to such an action.

Kyle


-- 
Kyle R. Rose                      "They can try to bind our arms,
Laboratory for Computer Science    But they cannot chain our minds
MIT NE43-309, 617-253-5883             or hearts..."
http://web.mit.edu/krr/www/                           Stratovarius
krose at theory.lcs.mit.edu                              Forever Free
-
Subcription/unsubscription/info requests: send e-mail with
"subscribe", "unsubscribe", or "info" on the first line of the
message body to discuss-request at blu.org (Subject line is ignored).