On Sat, 16 Oct 1999, Tom Hull wrote:
Finally, why should we trivialize the kernel of any OS as an "only
thing"? If kernels were so easy, one would think that GNU would
have long ago released one. But in my experience kernels are not
so easy, which is precisely why I think that anyone who
On Fri, Oct 15, 1999 at 02:38:45PM -0700, Derek J. Balling wrote:
At 03:01 PM 10/15/99 -0600, Richard Stallman wrote:
Peter Deutsch wrote:
I have yet to hear a persuasive explanation of why Free
Software advocates think it's OK for authors of fiction to be
paid for each
Windows98 and says "I'm not using Windows98, THAT's the kernel, I'm using
the 'Program Manager OS'" (since that's REALLY what they're using if your
argument is taken to its logical conclusions).
If your argument is taken to its logical conclusion, I'm using the bash
OS.. even on the IRIX
Alex Nicolaou wrote:
However, since credit is important to you, it is worth
releasing a new version of the GPL which includes a statement
of the terms that require distributors of GNU software to
awknowledge that their distribution contains GNU software.
I think the problem with this
At 09:53 AM 10/17/99 -0400, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
However, since credit is important to you, it is worth
releasing a new version of the GPL which includes a statement
of the terms that require distributors of GNU software to
awknowledge that their distribution contains GNU
Quoting Rodent of Unusual Size ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
I think the problem with this approach is that it appears
to assume that anything that is released under the GPL is
part of the GNU project.
This is a factual error, and functions here as a straw-man argument:
I have never known Stallman to
Rick Moen wrote:
Quoting Rodent of Unusual Size ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
I think the problem with this approach is that it appears
to assume that anything that is released under the GPL is
part of the GNU project.
This is a factual error, and functions here as a straw-man argument:
I
Quoting Rodent of Unusual Size ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
I believe you misunderstand me. I was in no way claiming
anything about the GPL or Richard; I was pointing out what
seems (to me) to be a flaw in a proposed alteration to the
GPL. GPL != GNU, but Alex's suggested change seemed (again,
to
I think your analogy is precise and accurate. It also
demonstrates an irreparable flaw in your position about individual
freedom.
It isn't a flaw, it just shows that we're evaluating freedom in two
different ways and not understanding each other. I was hoping the
analogy would
You may hear people say that an operating system is normally named
after its kernel, and therefore the "Linux" operating system
should be named after its kernel.
Actually operating systems are just about never named
after their kernels. It is normally the other way around.
You may hear people
The goal
of the OSS movement is to convince people and companies that by
definition a proprietary system cannot long-term deliver the same
real benefits that OSS can. If someone is well and truly convinced
of that, then they cannot be sold a proprietary system, no matter
Justin Wells wrote:
On Fri, Oct 15, 1999 at 09:33:11PM -0700, David Johnson wrote:
On Fri, 15 Oct 1999, Bruce Perens wrote:
It makes sense that the end-user in general would prefer a "do anything
you want" license. The important point is that the _author_ often
doesn't prefer
Hi,
please RMS, if you quote me and you draw conclusions, please
quote everything, than its easyer to correlate what I said and ment
in relation what you quoted.
Propably, (you remember 'free' verus 'for free/free beer') you are
not aware that many people on that lists are not native english
Richard Stallman wrote:
which is rare in the OSS movement. In my experience, people who
firmly reject non-free software do so at least partly based on the
moral disapproval which is the basis of the Free Software movement.
That is a strange experiance. Why should anybody have moral
Independent Observation: It's really sad when a German has to give an
American a lesson in American History. (.de is Germany right? I think so
but am too lazy to look it up *g*)
Angelo, you have it down 100% as to the causes and such of the Civil War
(known in many places in the south as the
On Sun, Oct 17, 1999 at 06:48:54PM -0400, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
You've said this before, and you've yet to convince me.
I do not believe you can fairly make the 'principal developer'
claim unless the project was working to the same goals as
the Linux project.
If you stripped Linux
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED], wrote (in part):
If you think it is proper to use a name that gives credit to those who
developed a system, but you think (as I do) that it is impractical to
give credit in that way to all the contributors, I suggest making a
list of them in order of
Well, to explain all the reasons, the political and economic
circumstances
would need about 30 pages ...
I though you where an american and you knew that, are you not?
Regards,
Angelo
Your education seems to lack the realization that any
telling of history is one of opinion and
I think this is a personal issue. A lot of us believe that credit _is_ due
to the GNU project, and we're goint to keep giving it and asking others to
give it. I doubt that carrying out this argument further is going to convince
us otherwise.
Guys,
First, this argument doesn't belong on license-discuss.
Second, I've seen this same argument _10_ or _20_ times now, over several
years. Dispite reading yet another iteration of the same old stuff, I've not
been convinced to stop calling it "GNU/Linux", and I doubt I'm going to
convince
On Sun, 17 Oct 1999, Alejandro Forero Cuervo wrote:
I believe the reasons why Richard wants us to call the system GNU/Linux is
so newcomers learn about the real reasons why the system is so important:
The freedom.
If this is the case, then the logical solution is to name it "Free Linux".
From: Arandir [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If this is the case, then the logical solution is to name it "Free Linux".
That's the worst of both worlds. Free Linux like Free Beer, eh? Or call it
Open Linux, except that that doesn't mean what we want to say either.
We're going around in circles. Give it
On Sun, 17 Oct 1999, Richard Stallman wrote:
For those of us who care about these freedoms as freedoms,
to be denied them is domination.
I rarely respond the Richard Stallman, because even though I disagree with him
on certain philosophical issues, I still greatly respect him. However, this
I like the acronym expansion of GNU/Linux:
GNU's Not Unix/Linux
But wait, don't forget what Linux stands for:
Linux Is Not UniX.
So now we've got two things that are not Unix?
Heh. ;)
Alejo.
http://bachue.com/alejo
--
The mere formulation of a problem is far more
24 matches
Mail list logo
