GNU/Linux naming debate

[ccb at kukla.tiac.net (Charles C. Bennett, Jr.)]

Never wanting to turn a deaf ear to a troll...

I think Linus nodded very affirmatively in the direction of Cambridge, MA
when he used the GPL to release Linux.  His insistence that the kernel
evolve to meet the GNU tools was a similar nod.

For these reasons, I think Linux should be called Linux.  There is
ample precedence here.  We don't call MICO (www.mico.org) "GNU/MICO"
yet there is no doubt it comes from that headset.  Haible and Stoll's
CLISP (ftp.gnu.org) is GPL'd but not called GNU/CLISP.  There are a
number of largish projects licensed under the GPL that don't call
themselves GNU/whatever or have GNU in their name.

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

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.

ccb, now running seti at Home


---
Charles C. Bennett, Jr.				Workgroup Technology Corp.
Principal Software Engineer,			91 Hartwell Ave.
Distributed Object Computing			Lexington, MA 02421

Had a look at PostgreSQL lately?		www.postgresql.org

-
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).