2006/10/10, Devdas Bhagat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On 10/10/06 15:20 +0530, Nagarjuna G. wrote:
<snip>
> it everywhere. So, the GNU community feels betrayed when the
> community at large speaks excluding the name as well as their
> ideology.
>
So I say Linux and put code out under the terms of the GPL v2.
> We wish this symbiosis is sustained as well as acknowledged. How else
> to do that than GNU+Linux?
>
See above. The problem with GNU/Linux is that it excludes everyone else.
There has been an immense contribution from BSD, MPL, Apache,
Artistic and other licenses in the code which makes Linux useful. So we
either acknowledge them all, or none of them.
why not, we do have GNU/NetBSD, GNU/KfreeBSD. Mozilla, and Apache are
application projects therefore donot fit to be called operating
systems. We dont give all the application names in the operating
system. They are very useful parts of the full system, just as bash,
emacs, GNOME, KDE, OpenOffice.org etc. are. You are trying to read it
as a licensing issue, it is not.
GNU community did untiringly requested all other licenses to make them
compatible with GPL, or dual license them, in the interest of user's
freedom. Lot of projects do this, e.g. openoffice.org, Perl. Several
projects' licenses have been modified, and became compatible with GPL,
eg. ZPL, PPL, APL. But, it is unfortunate that people read this
interest as FSF's interest, as if FSF's interest is not in their
interest. But, why not work in favor of FSF's interest, if FSF's
agenda is to protect your and my freedom. When we are requesting
people to adopt GPLv3, it is not to snatch anything from from you, but
to prevent it from getting snatched.
Nagarjuna
--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
