[ILUG-BOM] Re: Linus on Linux and the GPLv3
To be very precise, there isn't a Free alternative to gcc yet. If the GNU folks will continue with the whole GNU/Linux thing, I might just get bugged enough to write a BSD licensed compiler. Does that mean you would have absolutely no problem at all in exploitative corporates taking your hard work, (sometimes) turning it into crap and making a huge pile of cash on it ? Talking about freedom and practicing it is not just a momentary thing but has to be a continuous and perpetual struggle. If we leave the option for people to take what they want and commercialise it, they will never bother about freedom and the cause is diminished. If the restriction of keeping the released work also free is put, it makes them at least consult lawyers and think on ``Why did this person/group decide to do things this way ? and that is the beginning of victory because you start to make people think about things they otherwise take for granted. That's the stuff revolutions are made of. Then of course we are in a philosophical quandary of ``restricting freedom to preserve freedom. My simple answer to that is, GPL has proved that it CAN work and IS working. But my whole point is that GNU/Linux is pretty much useless to me. Regardless of how essential gcc is. If the GNU project gets credits, everyone else deserves the same amount of time. Hmm... is it not so that in all GNU projects painstaiking efforts are made to credit every single person who contributed to any project. In fact in the GNU C manual itself they are about 20 odd pages in the pdf crediting every person individually with the work they did. This includes BSD guys who did the BSD ports. This happens irrespective of what the personal beliefs are(i don't recall seeing a tag near anyone's name stating with GNU or without GNU :-) ) Therefore when credit is given to a community, it is every single individual that has worked who is actually credited. Moreover, and correct me if i'm wrong, but GNU was the first movement to credit every person involved with a software project in a public manner. Dispensing with the GPL? Definitely. Dispensing with the GNU project? Right now, other than the compiler, what else do you need to get a full BSD userland? My thesis is that Linux != GNU/Linux and there are other projects which deserve equal time in the OS name. If you truely feel that way and are passionate about freedom, you could start a movement to do the same telling people that ``Zero restriction freedom is true freedom and you could also perhaps call it GING(GING Is Not GNU) if you are not fond of G's, but love B's you could call it BING(BING Is Not GNU) which actually sounds quite neat :-) Regards, - vihan -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
Re: [ILUG-BOM] Re: Linus on Linux and the GPLv3
On 12/10/06 11:38 +0530, Vihan Pandey wrote: To be very precise, there isn't a Free alternative to gcc yet. If the GNU folks will continue with the whole GNU/Linux thing, I might just get bugged enough to write a BSD licensed compiler. Does that mean you would have absolutely no problem at all in exploitative corporates taking your hard work, (sometimes) turning it into crap and making a huge pile of cash on it ? No. I use enough BSD licensed software to know how the BSD community works. Given the popularity of web services, DRM and closed hardware (how many people here use nvidia's drivers?), I don't really the GPLv2 as giving a specific advantage to end users. The one way to get around the requirements for distributing source is not to distribute it at all, but only provide public APIs (or protocols) to allow access to your code. Talking about freedom and practicing it is not just a momentary thing but has to be a continuous and perpetual struggle. If we leave the option for people to take what they want and commercialise it, they will never bother about freedom and the cause is diminished. Please note that I have no issues with commercialising code. Nor does the FSF. Both of us have issues with closing source for the second level of users. The _sole_ reason I would be using the BSD license would be to keep the GNU zealots away. snip Hmm... is it not so that in all GNU projects painstaiking efforts are made to credit every single person who contributed to any project. In fact in the And should I not then give equal credit to every project which has contributed to my Linux system? GNU C manual itself they are about 20 odd pages in the pdf crediting every person individually with the work they did. This includes BSD guys who did the BSD ports. This happens irrespective of what the personal beliefs are(i don't recall seeing a tag near anyone's name stating with GNU or without GNU :-) ) Therefore when credit is given to a community, it is every single individual that has worked who is actually credited. Moreover, and correct me if i'm wrong, but GNU was the first movement to credit every person involved with a software project in a public manner. Saying GNU/Linux deprives the other communities of that credit. Devdas Bhagat -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
Re: [ILUG-BOM] Re: Linus on Linux and the GPLv3
On 10/12/06, Kenneth Gonsalves [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 12-Oct-06, at 10:22 AM, Faraz Shahbazker wrote: the other. Unfortunately, one side is desperately trying to reach an amicable inclusive settlement (atleast as far as this list is concerned), while the other refuses to budge or even recognize that there is a problem :-( which is which? Lol - it is clear from the context which someone seems to have forgetfully removed!! Infact this is clearly indicative of the entire debate: people forgetting the context which enabled the creation of a system that they so proudly use and promote. .farazs -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
Re: [ILUG-BOM] Re: Linus on Linux and the GPLv3
On Thu, 2006-10-12 at 10:22 +0530, Faraz Shahbazker wrote: On 10/12/06, Roshan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps, we have exercised our ``freedom of speech'', to the best of our abilities. There have been only arguments and no consensus on why 'GNU/Linux' or 'Linux'. Let us give a new name based on Union in Set Theory in mathematics acceptable to both, GliNUx, *ONLY FOR THIS Mailing list* ;-) Isn't that what we've been trying to say all along - in some form or the other. Unfortunately, one side is desperately trying to reach an amicable inclusive settlement (atleast as far as this list is concerned), while the other refuses to budge or even recognize that there is a problem :-( . farazs You know, after reading that entire thread, I can't help but think of - We are the Borg. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile. - which until recently was used when referring to another OS. Why not be really freedom loving and let each one call it what as it pleases them or haven't you heard that a rose by any other name has just as many thorns? -gabin -- this too shall pass. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
[ILUG-BOM] Re: Linus on Linux and the GPLv3
No. I use enough BSD licensed software to know how the BSD community works. Given the popularity of web services, DRM and closed hardware (how many people here use nvidia's drivers?), I don't really the GPLv2 as giving a specific advantage to end users. The one way to get around the requirements for distributing source is not to distribute it at all, but only provide public APIs (or protocols) to allow access to your code. We NEED to distribute source, just giving away API's sets a bad precedence for the project. If its an issue of source distribution, have you looked at Affero GPL ? Please note that I have no issues with commercialising code. Nor does the FSF. Both of us have issues with closing source for the second level of users. The _sole_ reason I would be using the BSD license would be to keep the GNU zealots away. That's not really the right way to go. You have every right to criticize anyone but releasing software under BSD style license(for freedom) just because you disagree with/dislike GNU and what it stands for set's a bad precedent. Moreover you can say what you want, but history is not going to change because of that. We owe FSF/GNU for starting this value system, lets not forget that. For whenever man forgets freedom or descends into callousness, the end result is a tyrannical society which in the end ends up destroying itself, only to go back to the value system. And should I not then give equal credit to every project which has contributed to my Linux system? Does that justify calling it Linux alone ? If you are are truely advocating giving credit to everyone call it GNU/Linux/Apache/_all_other_stuff_you_may_be_using When your BSD style licensed copiler does get finished and you are NOT AT ALL using ANY GNU tools nor follow the GNU philosophy. Please call your system whatever you want. Untill then you cannot simply dismiss GNU. Saying GNU/Linux deprives the other communities of that credit. Does that justify calling it Linux alone ? If you are are truely advocating giving credit to everyone call it GNU/Linux/Apache/_all_other_stuff_you_may_be_using deja vu . . . Regards, - vihan -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
[ILUG-BOM] Re: Linus on Linux and the GPLv3
On 11/10/06, Nagarjuna G. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: GNU is an operating system, and that is why the prooject talks of everything:kernel+userland+toolchain+desktop etc., GNU project is a comprehensive project. The kernel is still taking the first steps, falling now and then, the toddler way. This project did not start now, but in 1984.Why do you say it is JUST a tool chain, when you know that without it no free software can be made, maintained and distributed free. If you use 'JUST a x' to a dispensable thing, you may be right. Prove that it is dispensable. Kernel is indispensable, so we embrace all free kernels. and so we give due respect to linux by calling an operating system gnu/linux. because it can work with another kernel but since we like to give due credit to the great efords of linus, we call gnu OS as gnu/linux. the very fact that being an operating system we make reference to the kernel as a credit must be appreciated. and don't forget linux is compiled with gnu c compiler or gcc for short. and what is make? Well then GNU is indeed dependent on Linux, just as the latter is dependent on it. Lets call a chair a chair and a table a table. that is why I called it symbiosis. we are not those who excluded it, the others did so. So tell them dependable core things cannot be excluded. indeed that's the way it should be. gnu/linux or linux/gnu, it is one and the same till you realise that kernel is made for an operating system, operating system is not made for a kernel. therefore gnu/linux. Then why does GPL te (Forgive me if I have touched on a painful nerve) There are numerous commercial software vendors who use GNU software in their commercial stuff. For instance HP- UX. All of us who have used it know the extent to which GNU is a part of HP-UX. It suits HP's model. They are a hardware vendor, and make money from hardware more than they do from software. However, think of a small time developer. An individual who has his aspiations, dreams, wishes, and a word in his heart which reads like freedom. If he were to develop a very niche piece of software, he would be forced to make public his source code because he cannot use commercial tool-chain, and is therefore left with GNU, which implies his code falls under the GPL license. Now whose freedom are we talking about??? I am not clear. If he is the original author of the program, then he is free to decide. Please read http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html and one more point, how many people using the software in this case are going to be programmers or even software venders? how many can even customise it them selves even though they are programmers? and who says you can't charge for the copies? if some one else puts it on the web as is, it is nothing but a advertise of that software for free. just think, if software is closed source and is pyrated, will the customer have any rights to claim support from you? but when the software is open sourced, your support of customisations apply to each and every user. if you want to call free software business a service based, then so be it. but here the scope of you as a software developer giving service and earning is more, because there is no un official customer using non supported pyrated software. it!! Still not. Come on get down to producing some real work now. Probably instead of keying in useless comments and counter comments, concentrate on keying in at least a few lines of code. You will certainly be helping FSF a lot more that way. And indeed if you also do something for the 95% (which many of you involved in Indic localisation are actually doing), then trust me you will also have done a lot of good towards Freedom. You are right, that is why I contribute to Indic-computing, as well as to another GNU project (GNOWSYS). Other projects that I contribute to are gnowledge.org, gnoware.org, the Indic fonts (Gargi, Samyak) and supervising several others. There are others in this list too who are active contributors. oh, one of the active contributers is right now writing reply to this thread. sorry to be a bit personal. but first of all don't just asumingly point fingers at just about any one whom you don't really know. and talking about getting down to keying in some lines of code. I have seen the work of Dr. Nagarjuna and know him personally. he not only contributes in developing great free software but also contributes socially to fsf by pointing people to the right software for the right task. I personally had this experience. while talking about contributing to gnosys, he may have perhaps remembered me *smile*. so please have a detailed study of a persons work before saying get down to coding etc. True, working is more fun. very true sir. regards. Krishnakant. -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
[ILUG-BOM] Re: Linus on Linux and the GPLv3 (Mrugesh Karnik)
From: Mrugesh Karnik [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: GNU/Linux Users Group, Mumbai, India linuxers@mm.glug-bom.org Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 21:45:43 +0530 Subject: Re: [ILUG-BOM] Linus on Linux and the GPLv3 On Tuesday 10 October 2006 21:02, Nagarjuna G. wrote: 2006/10/10, Mrugesh Karnik [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Tuesday 10 October 2006 16:19, Nagarjuna G. wrote: GNU doesn't own any software, GNU is software. GNU is not a person, not a company, so the ownership issue doesn't arise. There goes Vihan's argument from the Andheri BoF. Granted that he did not mean that GNU owned the kernel, but I suppose he has no right to say this: But Linus himself uses GCC to build the kernel.. Mrugesh, the context was in terms of ``credit is given where credit is due and reciprocating. If you are quoting anyone, please mention the`complete' context in which the statement was made. Regards, - vihan -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
Re: [ILUG-BOM] Re: Linus on Linux and the GPLv3 (Mrugesh Karnik)
On Wednesday 11 October 2006 11:32, Vihan Pandey wrote: Mrugesh, the context was in terms of ``credit is given where credit is due and reciprocating. If you are quoting anyone, please mention the`complete' context in which the statement was made. Hmmm. Was that the context? I really can't remember. All I remember is me talking about Linus being against GPL3. Anyway, the intention was not personal abuse. For that matter, no abuse of any kind was intended. -- Mrugesh Karnik GPG Key 0xBA6F1DA8 Public key on http://wwwkeys.pgp.net pgp0wGVmbY93w.pgp Description: PGP signature -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
[ILUG-BOM] Re: Linus on Linux and the GPLv3
removed all previous posts Please do not take this post as sarcasm. It is a contemplation of the thread. begin Perhaps, we have exercised our ``freedom of speech'', to the best of our abilities. There have been only arguments and no consensus on why 'GNU/Linux' or 'Linux'. Let us give a new name based on Union in Set Theory in mathematics acceptable to both, GliNUx, *ONLY FOR THIS Mailing list* ;-) -- http://360.yahoo.com/sriram4420 __ Yahoo! India Answers: Share what you know. Learn something new http://in.answers.yahoo.com/ -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
Re: [ILUG-BOM] Re: Linus on Linux and the GPLv3
On 10/12/06, Roshan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps, we have exercised our ``freedom of speech'', to the best of our abilities. There have been only arguments and no consensus on why 'GNU/Linux' or 'Linux'. Let us give a new name based on Union in Set Theory in mathematics acceptable to both, GliNUx, *ONLY FOR THIS Mailing list* ;-) Isn't that what we've been trying to say all along - in some form or the other. Unfortunately, one side is desperately trying to reach an amicable inclusive settlement (atleast as far as this list is concerned), while the other refuses to budge or even recognize that there is a problem :-( . farazs -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
[ILUG-BOM] Re: Linus on Linux and the GPLv3
Rony wrote: In case of the former, one can charge any X amount from the client for making a customized package. But in the latter, suppose I make a CAD software thats very good and works just like the popular closed CAD software. I post it on the net under GPL and keep a price of some 100s of dollars. Now some smart alec who is out to ruin my business compiles my code and even acknowledges my good work and puts the package on the net for a free download. He is doing a perfectly legal thing as the GPL allows this. So how do I run my company when my work is available to others for free as in beer. When we consider such a scenario, the ratio of developers / programmers and customers (or end users) would result to less than 1 ( 1). By this, I mean, there are far more end-users than developers and programmers. Again, if smart alec, put its on the internet, there would some investment, that would make him re-consider, putting it for free. Secondly, he would have to invest in advertising that he's put your software as free download. Considering the cost of $100, it would also indicate that you have some amount invested in good advertising and that your software is under GPL. Even then considering the worst case scenario, Vinayak Suggested: 4) Dual licensing source code for commercial use (one of his points). I found the following page descirbing dual licensing http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/duallicence2.xml What Ubuntu does is, despite that it sends CD's for free (no cost) to anybody who demands its, provides supports for Ubuntu OS at desktop and server levels. But this in turn indicates, that much of the Free software over the internet are indeed, also, free as in bear, especially Linux distros. Where is the source of money for maintaining mirrors / servers for ISO's of these distros? __ Yahoo! India Answers: Share what you know. Learn something new http://in.answers.yahoo.com/ -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
Re: [ILUG-BOM] Re: Linus on Linux and the GPLv3
On Tuesday 10 October 2006 16:50, Dinesh Shah wrote: Ubuntu should be considered as a business in Investment Phase, where business invests to create it's market share. I had a long discussion with Mark Shuttleworth on this when he was in India. It's known as market seeding. But this in turn indicates, that much of the Free software over the internet are indeed, also, free as in bear, especially Linux distros. Where is the source of money for maintaining mirrors / servers for ISO's of these distros? Ads. Free resources on commercial servers used to attract potntial customers. So not all are charity. This is termed as Donation Economy. However, I am not in favour of such an economy. Such a economy is not sustainable over long period of time. Absolutely. However in this case the donations are not out of some social guilty but plain business. It costs a lot less to host a server than it does to hire a team of developers / debuggers and a ware house full of hardware. -- Rgds JTD -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
[ILUG-BOM] Re: Linus on Linux and the GPLv3
Mrugesh, when YOU create something YOU are the copyrite holder and that is unquestionable. You will be credited no matter what. The question is if one ``truly believes in a community spirit you name it something consistent with it. That's probably why GNU C is not called the Stallman compiler but it could have if the person concerned put his ego before the community(``unlike some people). Moreover on top of that claiming that you are a champion of digital rights is ludicrous. Stallman could have even trademarked Emacs, GNU C, GDB, Bison(co-trademarking ?) with each news/magazine/web pages advertising XYZ is Trademark of Richard Stallman. What I hate about you FSF people is that you try and steal credit. You just said the same thing again... Use GNU in the name? WHY? Make up a name that highlights freedom, _very very clearly_. Any suggestions? By the way in Revolution OS Linus himself said he wanted to call it Freeix, but he ``wasn't that egoistic then. Oh and mind you, you say GNU/Linux not GNU Linux. The only place where I've seen that second term used is on those stickers: GNU + Linux, the dynamic duo. I think that's fair. Clearly states that Linux is a separate project. GNU/Linux does not do that. By the way those stickers are courtesy FSF. Also, during Stallman's recent talk there were a few badges given out to the lucky few who came in first and grabbed them :-) with The GNU, Tux and Beastie on them crediting FSF, Linux and FreeBSD. FSF has never for a second ``forgotten Linux, RMS has repeatedly stated in countless speeches that a kernel was the need of the day and Linus fulfilled it at the right time. But how often is the reverse done? Highlight request. I agree with Linus. If the kernel developers think that GPL 3 is no good for the kernel, so be it. Let it be under GPL 2. Why create an issue? Highlight request. Do ALL the developers agree? If they do then as they are the copyrite holders they have every right to put it ``all of it under GPL v2. If there are developers who think different and hold a copyrite on certain modules they could just as well go in for GPL v3. Again, no intention of a flame war. But if you are going to use sentences like ``hate about you FSF people i doubt if i could just sit by. Regards, - vihan -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
[ILUG-BOM] Re: Linus on Linux and the GPLv3
Mrugesh Karnik Wrote: What I hate about you FSF people is that you try and steal credit. You just said the same thing again... Use GNU in the name? WHY? Make up a name that highlights freedom, _very very clearly_. Oh and mind you, you say GNU/Linux not GNU Linux. The only place where I've seen that second term used is on those stickers: GNU + Linux, the dynamic duo. I think that's fair. Clearly states that Linux is a separate project. GNU/Linux does not do that. Warning: I am not doing *ga ga gee gee over*(spouting), in favour of either the GNU or FSF or Linus Torvalds. After reading documents at http://www.gnu.org, its understood, Mr. Richard Stallman acknowledges Linus's effort and therefore, the name GNU/Linux. The use of GNU/Linux implicitly indicates, GNU plus Linux or GNU+Linux. I somehow feel, it still indicates, Linux is a great project. It clearly distinguished the credit of Linus and also maintained the credibility of GNU itself. If Linus Torvalds deserves a better credit, name it Linux/GNU. Linus in his first email, had mentioned, that it is not going to be as big as the GNU (or as professional as it it). He believes, that the kernel code was meant to be distributed free of cost (and nothing related to freedom). The GNU team, was lucky enough to be successful in obtaining the Linux Kernel, and serving it as their core kernel for the entire GNU operating system. -- http://www.linuxreality.com (Podcasts also for LINUX USERS) __ Yahoo! India Answers: Share what you know. Learn something new http://in.answers.yahoo.com/ -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
[ILUG-BOM] Re: Linus on Linux and the GPLv3
Dinesh Shah Wrote: Hi Roshan, Hello :) Ubuntu should be considered as a business in Investment Phase, where business invests to create it's market share. I had a long discussion with Mark Shuttleworth on this when he was in India. But its webpages and the CD-covers state that Ubuntu will be always free of charge (no money, free). So did he mean, that the software is going to cost money once, it acquires a greater market share? This is termed as Donation Economy. However, I am not in favour of such an economy. Such a economy is not sustainable over long period of time. I too think how can it be sustainable. But, hasn't the FSF proved it to be? -- http://www.linuxreality.com (Podcasts also for LINUX USERS) __ Yahoo! India Answers: Share what you know. Learn something new http://in.answers.yahoo.com/ -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
Re: [ILUG-BOM] Re: Linus on Linux and the GPLv3
Just for curiosity, I want to know. How many freedom fighters on this list actually own commercial software companies and how many of these software companies are making non-customized software that can be used by everyone *and* , are the source codes of these non-customized softwares available to everyone on the internet under the gpl? Please reply patiently. Regards, Rony. ___ All new Yahoo! Mail The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of use. - PC Magazine http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
Re: [ILUG-BOM] Re: Linus on Linux and the GPLv3
Sometime Today, Roshan assembled some asciibets to say: resort to more discussions and arguments over an active mailing list like GLUG-BOM! Ilug-bom traffic levels are reasonably low. -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
Re: [ILUG-BOM] Re: Linus on Linux and the GPLv3
On Sunday 08 October 2006 17:33, Roshan wrote: Seems as if the FSF gained a control over Linus and forced the name GNU/Linux. Someone wise has said - Whats in a name?. I think the FOSS should invest more time in developing a better, friendlier UI than fighting over what Linux should be called! -- Regards, Dinesh A. Joshi -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
Re: [ILUG-BOM] Re: Linus on Linux and the GPLv3
On 10/8/06, Dinesh Joshi wrote: Someone wise has said - Whats in a name?. I think the FOSS should invest more time in developing a better, friendlier UI than fighting over what Linux should be called! Just the other day there was talk that FLOSS needs good marketing. And brand name is an very essential part of marketing. Marketing the OS as Linux puts it in quite different light than marketing it as GNU/Linux. -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
Re: [ILUG-BOM] Re: Linus on Linux and the GPLv3
On 10/8/06, mehul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just the other day there was talk that FLOSS needs good marketing. And brand name is an very essential part of marketing. Marketing the OS as Linux puts it in quite different light than marketing it as GNU/Linux. Exactly the point... Linux has far higher recall value then GNU/Linux. :-) Those who are in FOSS for some time may know that Linux is just a kernel but the people at large refer the system as Linux. With regards, -- --Dinesh Shah :-) -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
