GPLv3 & GNU/Linux, or maybe Linux/GNU ???

[Madison Kelly]

Jamon Camisso wrote:
>>From http://www.linuxjournal.com/node/1000111 with my comments interspersed:
> 
> Richard Stallman
> 
> "Now, what we didn't have 15 years ago was the threat of making the
> program effectively non free by technical restrictions placed around it.
> That's what Tivoisation is. Tivoisation means taking a free program and
> distributing a binary of it, and also providing the source, because the
> GPL requires that. But when the user changes the source code and
> compiles it and then tries to install the changed program he discovers
> that that's impossible because the machine is designed not to let him."
> 
> He makes a very important point here. Stallman is our ideologue, like it
> or not, and though he may approach things in an overly rigid and openly
> dogmatic manner, his work (GPL, FSF, GNU etc.) is crucially important;
> if for no other reason than that it provides a central point of focus
> around which to debate and define one's own position, be it one of
> agreement or diametrically opposed. One must not forget one's origins,
> nor should one discount the relevance of GPLv2 or 3 based on a
> disagreement with personalities or philosophies.
> 
> Linus Torvalds
> 
> "In some ways, I can even hope that it clears the air for all the stupid
> tensions to just admit that there are differences of opinion, and that
> the FSF might even just stop using the name "GNU/Linux", finally
> admitting that Linux never was a GNU project in the first place."
> 
> Straight from the horse's mouth folks, it doesn't get much clearer than
> that.
> 
> Alan Cox
> 
> "There is no such thing as GNU/Linux. For an article like this it's
> really important to understand and clarify that (and from the US view
> also as a trademark matter).
> 
> I mean there is no abstract entity even that is properly called
> "GNU/Linux". It's a bit of spin-doctoring by the FSF to try and link
> themselves to Linux. Normally its just one of those things they do and
> people sigh about, but when you look at the licensing debate the
> distinction is vital. (its also increasingly true that FSF owned code is
> a minority part of Linux)"
> 
> I wonder what the largest majority of code is in a GNU&&||Linux system.
> Perhaps Debian has it right calling it GNU/Linux after all, not
> necessarily calling it GNU or Linux, but highlighting the combination of
> the two. After all is said and done, any major distribution is
> indisputably a combination of those two (and other) constituent parts.
> 
> Greg Kroah-Hartman
> 
> "So it seems that the FSF is only targeting the Tivo issue, which us
> kernel developers have explicitly stated in public that it is acceptable
> to use _our_ code in this manner. So they are now trying to tell another
> group (us) what we should do to our code.
> 
> As the FSF has no contribution in the Linux kernel, and has nothing to
> do with it in general, we kernel developers are now a bit upset that
> someone else is trying to tell us that something we explicitly stated
> was acceptable use of our code, is suddenly bad and wrong."
> 
> Does seem a sort of roundabout way of getting a GPLv3 licensed kernel or
> tool onto my computer vs. a Tivo box. Granted many use something like
> MythTV, but if we just stopped watching tv altogether or downloaded HDTV
> torrents of said show, problem solved, albeit in a flippant and
> non-legal manner :)
> 
> Andrew Morton
> 
> "In fact this points at a broad problem with the existing process: I'm
> sure that a large majority of the people who actually write this code
> haven't made their opinions felt to the FSF. Yet the FSF presumes to
> speak for them, and proposes to use their work as ammunition in the
> FSF's campaigns."
> 
> The phrase "if you permit it you promote it" comes to mind.
> 
> Dave Miller
> 
> "For the kernel I'm pretty sure things will go on as they have before."
> 
> As Greg Kroah-Hartman said, the kernel developers have no problem with
> Tivo devices using a Linux kernel with or without said device allowing
> changes to the code.
> 
> Richard Stallman
> 
> "Calling the combined system GNU/Linux is right because it gives the GNU
> Project credit for its work, but there are things more important than
> credit -- your freedom, for example. It is no accident that the GNU GPL
> existed before Linux was begun. We wrote the GPL to protect the freedom
> of the users of GNU, and we are revising it today so that it will
> protect against newer technical methods of denying that freedom. When
> you think about GPL issues, this is the background for them.
> 
> If the developers of Linux disagree with that goal, they are entitled to
> their views. They are entitled to cite their important work--Linux, the
> kernel--to be listened to more, but they should respect our right to
> cite the GNU system in the same way."
> 
> Who can argue with that sentiment? Seems the FSF is just trying to keep
> up with the times and stay relevant, while also trying to create a
> framework that will allow Free/Open Source Software to stay that way
> indefinitely. Admirable, and I think, kernel issues aside, crucially
> important to protect our freedom to do what we want with our various
> bits and pieces of hardware.
> 
> How about Linux/GNU then?

I don't have much to add, because I try to stay away from these 
ideological debates (do *you* want to get between Stallman and 
Torvalds?). In the end, as a small-time developer of a little project on 
the periphery of GNU/Linux (yes, I went there!), I am just happy these 
guys are tearing into each other about freedom. So long as the "tearing" 
remains professional and civil, good will come of it. The end result 
will likely be some amalgam of the two ideologies that will protect our 
freedom to tinker better than either alone could do.

And props on your email. It was really well laid and thought out.

Madi
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists