As a "mostly" lurker, this one will bring me out. RMS is both right and wrong. He's technically/legally/morally(?) right (in a sense) the GNU application base is an integral part of the Linux phenomenon and rightfully deserves recognition as such. He's also is wrong (irrelevant?) in that humans filter sensory input, including language, by distorting, deleting and generalizing the wealth of information into manageable chunks. For instance - both Coke and Kleenex are registered brand names that have been generalized in common usage to refer to soda pop and facial tissues in general.
I know and fully support that EUGLUG is "officially" Eugene Unix GNU Linux Users Group. This grew as an organic response to the realization that the EUGene Linux Users Group had grown along with the Open Source movement. However, in daily practice, it is "the Linux Users Group". Not even the Eugene Linux Users Group. Natural language patterns just aren't going to recognize the technically correct when it's easier and frankly more rhythmical to use the less technically correct. It's a Pandora's box. If RMS was trying to defend his copyright or trademark, I think he'd have legal standing (AFAIK- I'm no lawyer (psychologist and Linux Geek)), but at this time Linux has gone into the vernacular and it most likely won't go back. Woody Edward Craig wrote: Edward Craig wrote: > > Where the discussion left off as I noticed Rob's absence... > > -- > Ed Craig [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Taxi (I need an income) GNU/Linux (I can afford a Free OS) > Think this through with me, let me know your mind... Hunter/Garcia > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 10:52:43 -0800 (PST) > From: Edward Craig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: EUGLUG web site > > I can forward the bounce I'll get from santafe.edu, no such user > as user-groups, apparently. > > On Tue, 15 Jan 2002, Richard Stallman wrote: > > > I'm not sure that editing the various authors of the prose to > > reflect your concerns would be honest. > > > > If you had offered web space for the individuals to use for their own > > purposes, then it would be wrong to edit them. > I didn't, and the person who set up and maintains the site is off > in Chile. I can't speak on his behalf. I'm not sure we've met. > > > But these people wrote the pages for the group, right? > Did they? What I wrote was because I thought it might be useful > and this was a place I could show it off. I didn't write much, it's > probably gone, I know I haven't contributed in a while. But I did it to > feel useful, I'm pretty sure I did it for myself, however anonymously. > > So it is legitimate for the group to edit them to suit its purposes. > It is legitimate for the person who took the responsibility for > setting up and maintaining the site for the group, yes. Apparently, Cile > in January is a better place than Eugene, and whatever consensus the group > might reach, the homepage is out-dated. > > > However, whatever the reasons may be why people wrote what they did, > > I'm asking the group to make a decision to call the system thoroughly > > GNU/Linux--to do what it already says is right to do. > I think we should definitely postpone the rest of this discussion > until Rob forsakes summertime Chile for the cold winter rain of Eugene, at > which point I, or perhaps Rob can post this thread to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and > we can see what ensues. > > -- > Ed Craig [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Taxi (I need an income) GNU/Linux (I can afford a Free OS) > Think this through with me, let me know your mind... Hunter/Garcia
