GNU/Linux naming debate

[lark at world.std.com (Lar Kaufman)]

I agree with Charles on his rationale for why Linux should be called 
Linux, with an additional observation: though arguably GNU utilities
did/do supply more than half of Linux, they are not the necessary half,
and Torvalds could have assembled a Linux without GNU, using BSD and 
CMU and other resources.  (Yes, it would have looked different.  But
how far along was the Hurd project, really...)  The achievement of
assembling Linux can't be minimized by comparing lines of code. Icing
without cake is still called icing, but a cake is a cake, icing or no.

As for trademarking GNU/Linux, that would clearly require permission 
since Linus has a court-affirmed trademark registration on "Linux" but
he's probably just polite enough to license it... FSF and GNU are 
probably registrable marks, and I agree with Charle's suggestion that
they be used as registered marks.

 -lar
He that shall oppose an assault only with a shield to receive the blows, or 
in any more respectful posture, without a sword in his hand, to abate the 
confidence and force of the assailant... will find such a defence serve only to
draw upon himself the worse usage. - John Locke, TREATISE OF CIVIL GOVERNMENT
-
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).