Free Software vs OSS

[Calum]

i know, but those that care will find out, and those that do not would not give a shit anyway. i sometimes refer to linux as gnu/linux when i remember, and i think that's fair...

[voidmain]

quote:Originally posted by flap:
Same here. Unfortunately though, when people read "Linux" in a magazine or newspaper and don't really know what it's about, they're usually not seeing GNU mentioned anywhere.

Well, not entirely true.  When you or I read the magazine and see Linux mentioned we know exactly what they are talking about.         And rather than introducing too much confusion into the equation for those uninformed people reading about or are interested in getting into a GNU/Linux based system I think it is ok for them to shorten it to Linux.  

If they can get their foot into the GNU/Linux door just by the use of the short easy term of "Linux", then they are much more likely to hear about GNU after the fact and to join in the enthusiasm of GNU, the GPL and "Free" software in general.

And I also will submit to you that the coming of the Linux kernel has done far more for the promotion of GNU software than there ever was, many times over.  GNU should really be thanking Linus rather than dissing him (which RMS does).

[ September 16, 2002: Message edited by: void main ]

[KernelPanic]

I call it GNU/Linux only when writing things like my Penguin Digital Solutions project. I don't know why I'm doing that because I would be damn suprised if the dozy AQA examiner even knew what linux was.

[voidmain]

Update.. I don't want to turn this into an RMS bashing thread but I just happened to finally read the original link that flap was referring to. I have some problems with the way RMS goes about promoting GNU/FSF.

http://www.theregus.com/content/4/26311.html
     

quote:RMSI do not advocate open source, but I wrote a free software license, the GNU General Public License, that is described by some as "open source". I also launched, in 1984, the development of a free software operating system that is "Linux" by some. I hope this makes my response worth reading.

I believe is not completely accurate.  Yes, they launched the development of a free software operating system, mostly a clone of UNIX.  However, an operating system without a kernel is *not* an operating system.  The GNU software by itself without the Linux kernel is *not* an operating system.  Originally Linus wrote a kernel, and at the time the easiest thing to do was to put that kernel under the GPL and to add the rest of the GNU software/utilities so there would be a complete operating system and I see nothing wrong with calling that operating system "Linux" as I said.

Now people who program for FSF, GNU, etc all deserve a huge amount of credit and I for one am extremely thankful for the work they have done (including RMS), and I try and contribute wherever/whenever I can. But to me RMS means more to RMS than FSF means to RMS. I could have him all wrong but that's the way I read him.

[ September 16, 2002: Message edited by: void main ]

[Calum]

i think you are right on all points there, void main, although i'm not so sure just how selfish RMS really is, i think he is just overzealous.

[flap]

I don't think they would claim that GNU ever managed to achieve the goal of a complete OS (before Hurd) on their own, hence they call it GNU/Linux.

To paraphrase RMS, it's not like he wants you to call it 'Stallmanix'. He doesn't claim to be the sole proponent of free software and doesn't want personal credit for the GNU project's work. I want GNU/FSF to be brought out of the limelight and to get the "credit" - and I have nothing personally to gain from that. Why is it hard to believe that RMS has the same goal?

[voidmain]

Because even using only the term "Linux", one of the *major* selling points of Linux is that it is free/Free and open source. And one of the first things people learn about it is licensed under the "GPL". That should be enough. RMS's comments make me want to go out and clone my own set of UNIX utilities and write my own license called the "FPL" (Free Public License) but would follow the same rules of the GPL regarding keeping the source open and modifiable.

Since Linus is the copyright holder of the Linux kernel he could change it over to the FPL license and use FPL utilities to make up much of the OS. It is something he might seriously want to do with all of the unjustified bad mouthing he's received.  Then where would GNU be?  

Now, I would rather that RMS tone down his criticism of Linus and the naming of the Linux OS. And it wasn't Linus' who encouraged anyone to refer to the entire OS as "Linux". After all, he just wrote the kernel which he named Linux, it was all of the distro people that decided to call the OS "Linux", probably because before the distros the first thing you did was download the Linux kernel, then get the GNU pieces that were adapted to the Linux kernel one by one (which wasn't the entire system in the beginning). It was "natural" to refer to the system as "Linux", not imposed.

Changing it now is just grand standing in my opinion. Linux already significantly promotes GNU and Free Software, no need for a name change.

[voidmain]

Here is a good editorial on all of this that I am in complete agreement with:

http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/main/0,14179,2260109,00.html
 

quote:
What we have here is a failure to communicate...
 By Evan Leibovitch
 May 17, 1999

Last time, I talked about Corel's entry into the Linux distribution field, and how the company was likely to put a business-friendly face on the Debian's Linux distribution. Debian, so far, has been very popular in academia, hobbyist and research circles, but doesn't appear to be a big player in the retail and commercial fields.

 I submit that one of the reasons for Debian's lackluster showing is because of its name. In November 1994, the Free Software Foundation (FSF) officially sponsored the Debian Project. And now it's officially known as "Debian GNU/Linux," instead of simply "Debian Linux," in deference to the FSF's GNU Project and its contributions to the Linux operating system. Though the FSF sponsorship of Debian lasted only a year, this particular after-effect lingers on.

 One other distribution, Stampede, copied Debian's naming, but without the direct FSF connection its application of the different name is confused and inconsistent. Its home page says "GNU/Linux" but its logo and text says "Stampede Linux."

 What's in a name?

 The effect of all this is that newcomers who are unfamiliar with the politics might ask, "What's the difference between a Linux system and a GNU/Linux system? Is that like a Red Hat Linux system?"

 The answer of course, is no, and that GNU/Linux and Linux, when referring to a full operating system, describe the same general thing. A GNU/Linux system doesn't necessarily contain more GNU components than a Linux system. So then, one must ask, why bother with the distinction? It certainly doesn't make sense to me.

The term "Linux system" is relatively easy to say (once you dispense with whether it's a soft or hard "i"), and most people know immediately what the term means. It's economical with words and has easily become a part of the Linux lingo. On the other hand, those in our world who believe in manipulating language for political means insist on the term GNU/Linux in order to pay forced homage to the FSF and GNU.

 GNU leader Richard Stallman, hardly one for compromise, is barely satisfied with Debian's level of homage. He believes there's no such thing as a plain old Linux system. Did you know that what we've been calling Linux systems all this time are just GNU systems, with Linux kernels temporarily killing time until the GNU HURD kernel is ready to take its place?

 Yeah, right.

What's in a Linux system?
 What most of the reasonable world calls a Linux system is a collection of mostly free software that includes the Linux kernel, surrounded by myriad tools from a variety of sources. Some parts of a Linux system, including its compiler and base libraries, come from the GNU Project. The X server comes from the XFree86 Project, Perl comes from Larry Wall, the filesystem design from somewhere else, etcetera.

 But that hasn't deterred the GNU/Linux crusade. At a press conference at the March LinuxWorld show in San Jose, Stallman told a reporter, "the use of the term 'Linux system' is highly inappropriate," and that he would take it as a personal insult should the term be uttered in his presence.

 Stallman and his followers believe that the issue is significant based on the belief that simply calling it Linux denies the FSF of its rightful place in history. An article in Salon magazine expresses Stallman's fears best, but those who need the direct approach can read it in his own words.

 Stallman has never missed an opportunity to impose his linguistic philosophies in any forum possible. The latest was in early May and started with a joke posted in the mailing list of the Greater New Hampshire Linux User Group (GNHLUG). GNHLUG member Lee Rothstein wrote a fairly innocent joke about How Linux users "do it".

 Stallman's response? "Linux users are people who use the GNU system and don't know it." This comment, and others that followed, have led to a flame war on the GNHLUG mailing list that continues even as I write this.

 The worst part of Stallman's ongoing tirade is that it appears to have the opposite effect of the one he desires. His humorless approach, designed to create controversy unless he gets his way completely, has increased the ranks of reactive GNU bashers who would belittle the FSF's role in the evolution of free software. The more Stallman obsesses with the naming issue and less with the code itself, the more adversaries he makes among Linux users. Stallman's greatest single software contribution to Linux -- the gcc compiler -- is now out of his control and in the hands of the once-splintered egcs team.

 Some have called him divisive or destructive. Others -- even worse -- would dismiss him as a crank for insisting that he (and the GNU project) be credited in the proper names of all Linux products. The last thing the community needs is to have Stallman's plea for recognition be answered with an equally humorless retort of "what have you done for me lately?"

Looking for solutions
 Thankfully, some light is emerging from the heat. It so happens that Linux International (LI) Director Jon "Maddog" Hall is a member of GNHLUG and has been following the above-mentioned e-mail confrontations. He refined an idea by GNHLUG member Matt Herbert into a solution that, to me, deals masterfully with the issue.

The plan is to create a "GNU Inside" logo, that would adorn every Linux package, in much the same way that Apache and Netscape and other logos grace Linux system boxes these days. It could also be used by BSD Unix variants and any other product that comes packaged with GNU software.

 "I'm as pleased as I can be with this solution," said Rothstein, whose joke started the whole e-mail mess. "Maddog showed remarkable wisdom in the midst of the chaos."

 Indeed. And I hope LI goes ahead with it, even without Stallman's blessing.

 Perhaps, maybe one day, we'll be able to look back at all this and have a good laugh. Then again, I suspect some won't, and couldn't if they tried.