On Fri, May 06, 2016 at 06:15:03PM -0500, J.B. Nicholson wrote: > Alex Jordan wrote: > > You're completely missing the above point. What Julien is saying > > (correct me if I'm wrong) is that using "GNU" as a brand for > > freedom-respecting operating systems is valuable even if technically > > inaccurate. > > I can't correct your understanding of what Julien said because I don't speak > for Julien and I don't see that you sent a copy of your email to Julien so > Julien can provide the correction you seek.
Crap! I meant to CC the list and completely forgot. Apologies. (That's also why I said "correct me if I'm wrong" - I was assuming Julien would see it!) CC'ing now. > > In other words, you think that this wouldn't work because the steps > > would be "put the 'GNU' moniker in the name of everything with the > > actual GNU code, then identify things with the 'GNU' moniker in the > > name as free." You're totally right, that wouldn't work, but that's > > not what's being suggested. > > That does not describe my views. > > > What's being suggested is that we ignore where the different components > > of the OS come from, and evaluate *only* if it's a free OS. Then if it > > is, we put the 'GNU' moniker into the name, even if the OS doesn't > > actually use GNU code. > > There are free software OSes without GNU I would not want to call GNU > because calling them GNU would not only be misleading but disrespectful of > OS developers who are doing what free software activists want done. Using > the word GNU as you describe is not only incorrect usage but could become > deceptive. We're better off identifying what things really are and teaching > people to value software freedom and ethical treatment for its own sake. > This work cannot be reduced to a branding exercise nor should branding be > given primacy. Generally speaking I agree with you. I was just trying to explain the idea, since there seems to have been some misunderstanding.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
