"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > FTP is part of every GNU work station, but the procotol, like X, > > isn't developed by the FSF. > > Neither are the FTP clients. > > So GNU inetutils which provides GNU ftp isn't part of the GNU system? > Nor is the GNU ftpd which GNU inetutils also provides part of the GNU > system?
<URL:http://www.gnu.org/software/inetutils/> InetUtils is a collection of common network programs. It includes (amongst others): * An ftp client and server. * A telnet client and server. * An rsh client and server. * An rlogin client and server. * A tftp client and server. These are improved versions of programs originally from BSD. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > There is a difference between assembling a system, and > > developing its components. The FSF certainly does not develop > > X11. > > > > Neither does the FSF develop FTP, SMTP, Gopher, HTTP, .... I > > fail to see what protocols have to do with this. > > So does anybody else. The protocols are a blatant red herring > brought up by yourself. The topic is the programs and libraries > constituting a GNU system. And those are to a significant degree > developed by third parties and used as components in a compilation. > > Emacs was to a significant degreed developed by third parties, I > guess it too isn't part of the GNU system. Is is a component of a compilation, but as such is a single entity (with very few exceptions (c) FSF due to the practice of copyright assignments) and has been developed mostly as a single entity. However, there are subsystems (like calc) which have historically been distributed as separate entities. So parts of Emacs can be considered aggregated. There is no necessity for drawing a line here, however, since copyright and license for the components in distribution rest with FSF and the GPL. > Nor is GCC, which is being developed by RedHat, and then we have the > GNU C library which also is being developed by RedHat. It sure is part of any GNU system, in the form of an aggregation (in the case of GCC). The C library, however, is linked with the executables, and that exceeds mere aggregation. The C library, however, is licensed under the LGPL. > > As the head for the GNU project he is responsible for it. He > > might not have written every single line, but he is the head of > > the GNU project, whether you like it or not. And that is what > > St. IGNUcius says. > > It is irrelevant to the copyright situation. > > The copyright situation doesn't dictate if something is part or not > of an operating system, or a project. Looks like you again confused what this thread is supposed to be about. You objected against GNU systems being a compilation, and that concerns its copyright situation and nothing else. You really should get a mail client suitable for your short attention span. > GCC isn't fully copyrighted by the FSF, neither are many projects, > yet they are GNU projects, then there are non-GNU projects which are > part of the GNU system. Which, for that reason, is mostly to be considered a compilation with regard to the copyright situation. > Please do something useful, it is quite sad that you cannot even > acknowledge that you are simply trolling right now. Not sharing your delusions is hardly trolling. > I sometimes wonder if you are infact worse than Alexander, atleast > he can be funny at times. You mean: at least you don't look too silly in comparison with him. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
