[GNUz] GNU/Linux ...

[Nick Rout]

On Sat, July 3, 2004 9:07 pm, InfoHelp said:
> Thanks for getting us started moving over here Tim,
>
> On Sat, 2004-07-03 at 15:46, Timothy Musson wrote:
>> Jim Cheetham, 2004-07-02 21:58:00:
>> > Well, I don't agree with the "GNU/Linux" position, even though I use
>> > Debian
>>
>> My take on the naming thing is that, if it hadn't been for the name
>> "Debian GNU/Linux", I might not have "noticed" the GNU Project so soon=
,
>> or realised that they were important. It would've taken me longer to
>> understand that Free doesn't mean gratis. (That's why RMS pushes the
>> GNU/* convention, and - for me at least - it did make a difference.)
>
> I had formulated an observation to offer Jim back, and here's the best
> place I can find for it, away from archive.
>
> Is the desire for a pure "GNU" formation practical here & now? Or ever?
> While there are occasional BSD references on CLUG, non-"Linux" usage is
> not critical mass. Reaching further afield, it may be, or the same. How
> then will the objective of purity assist?

would be an interesting exercise.

what is the gnu web server? mta? media player?

I think a pure gnu/linux distro would be destructive of choices, and
choice is a big reason for people changing from windows in the first
place.

why restrict choice to gnu and the kernel? is there a big problem with th=
e
apache license? or the sendmail license?

I posted a list of the licenses on the mandrake 4 cd on the CLUG or
installfest list a few weeks ago, certainly many were not GPL.

how about seeing what licenses are on the packages on your system? Its
pretty easy with an rpm system. of course a GPL license is not an
indication of a package being part of GNU/FSF, but a different license
would probably count it out.


>
> You seem to be reading the formulation "GNU/Linux" as a tainted GNU, or
> a conditioned "Linux", where it's better read as an alliance. Or as a
> switch - it offers dual choice, of GNU or Linux, on the same menu, or o=
f
> the combination of two related souls. Mates.
>
>> > even though RMS dismisses them as "non-free"
>> > [...]
>
> Either too extreme, or in fact reformable.
>
>> > I do think that a "pure GPL" distribution would be more practical, a=
nd
>> > more in agreement with the spirit of free-libre software.
>
> As an objective, worth aspiring to. As a starting point, impossible?
>
>> I agree. My impression of the Debian situation is that RMS feels he
>> can't _recommend_ a distribution that "encourages" people do something
>> he considers unethical (i.e. install non-Free software), since to do s=
o
>> would make him a hypocrite.
>
> So he needs us (GLU) to do it for him! Who else can muster an effect?
>
> Thanks for the readings - off for a looksee..
>>
>> Recent zest:
>> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=3D20040226003735733
>>
>> Older zest, but well worth a read if you haven't read it already:
>> http://moglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/anarchism.html
>>
>> ("Part 1" of the older zest is mostly just a bit of fun, and not vital
>> to what follows. I mention that coz I found "Part 1" hard going, and t=
he
>> rest pretty jolly neat.)
>>
>> Tim
>
> Rik
> --
> GNU/Linux user ~ FedoraCore2 i686, kernel 2.6.5-1.358, GNOME 2.6 deskto=
p
> Evolution 1.4.6 email, Mozilla 1.6 browser, OpenOffice.org 1.1.1 suite =
~
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GNUz mailing list
> GNUz@inode.co.nz
> http://lists.ourshack.com/mailman/listinfo/gnuz
>