-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 As we all know, rms started a campaign to get people to call Linux systems "GNU/Linux" instead of Linux. His goal is to improve the perceived recognition of the FSF and the GNU Project - a reasonable goal. However I believe this method of achieving that goal is misguided, and motivated largely by selfish reasons. If you were swayed by his argument, and have begun to call Linux systems "GNU/Linux" then I ask you to reconsider your position. What follows is an essay I wrote in support of that proposition.
The term "GNU/Linux operating system" is a fallacy and a subversion of intellectual property rights perpetrated by Richard M. Stallman (rms), on account of his egomaniacal rejection of the popularity of Linux in over his own operating system (GNU Hurd), and what he feels is a lack of recognition for the work the GNU project has done to make free software workable and usable. While I respect rms and the work he and the GNU project have done to bring high-quality free software to my desktop, on this point he is simply wrong. An operating system is defined as the software which "interacts directly with the hardware, providing common services to programs and isulating them from hardware idiosyngracies. Viewing the system as a set of layers, the operating system is commonly called the system kernel, or just the kernel, emphasizing its isolation from user programs."[1] The term operating system is defined this way in virtually every major text on the subject. In a Linux distribution, then, the operating system is the Linux kernel, and only the Linux kernel. The Linux kernel was originally created and written by Linus Torvalds of Finland (who owns the trademark "Linux" in the U.S. and other countries), and not by the GNU project. It is not, and has never been a part of the GNU project. While it is clear that GNU and Linux have close ties, to associate GNU with Linux in this manner therefore can only be a spurious association. It is true that all Linux distributions contain a large amount of software written by the GNU project. rms feels that the GNU project is not recognized by many users of Linux systems as having contributed software that makes up a significant percentage of any given Linux distribution. He feels that it is important to recognize the efforts of the GNU project, for with out them there likely would be no Linux distributions. Here, he has a point. GNU absolutely should be recognized and commended for their work. However, this is irrelevant to the issue of how to name Linux systems. The need for the GNU project to be recognized does not give rms, or anyone else, the right to subvert the names of the products of others. The names they choose, under U.S. intellectual property rights laws, belong to those entities who created the product. It is the Linux distributors, and *only* the distributors of a Linux distribution, who get to decide what the name of their product is. Stallman and the GNU project are quick to use intellectual property rights to their advantage when defending violations of the GPL; it astonishes me that he is willing to take liberties with the intellectual property rights of others in this manner. However he does so here also for reasons motivated by self-interest, so perhaps it is not so surprising. The GNU Public Licence (GPL), the software license under which the GNU project's software is offered, allows anyone generally to reuse, modify, and redistribute software code which it covers, so long as they do so under the terms of the GPL. It does not require the inclusion of the name of the GNU Project, or "GNU" to be a part of the name of any resulting software. It does not, in fact, require anyone to credit the GNU Project for the software in any way (as in fact software which is covered by the GPL may not have anything to do with the GNU Project. Barring such a term present in the GPL, Stallman has no claim on the names of other people's products. And were one to exist, its enforceability might be questionable, as such a clause may (or may not) contradict existing intellectual property law. In common usage, one refers not to their Red Hat Linux system, nor to their Mandrake Linux system, nor to their Caldera Open Linux system; but instead abbreviate this generically to "Linux system." In each of those cases, GNU is not a part of the name, and abbreviating the name to GNU/Linux is nonsensical. Furthermore, rms' assertion that this should be done, and his campaign to convince people in some sense violates the intellectual property rights of those who own the names of their particular Linux distribution. The only exception for which this does not apply is the debian GNU/Linux distribution, which has chosen to alter its name from simply debian Linux, in deference to rms. It is their right to do so, but it is not the right of rms to demand this from anyone else. Therefore, when refering to any distribution of Linux other than debian GNU/Linux, or when referring to Linux systems generically, using the term "GNU/Linux" is simply wrong. - -- Derek Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] - --------------------------------------------- I prefer mail encrypted with PGP/GPG! GnuPG Key ID: 0x81CFE75D Retrieve my public key at http://pgp.mit.edu Learn more about it at http://www.gnupg.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8wlSedjdlQoHP510RAsjeAJ97/FhN5npbPQxDIlucg4HngfcknwCeLlZ1 pNwo4AXLAS3K150mKVhWWSo= =Evrn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ***************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *****************************************************************
