[GNUz] GNU/Linux ...

[InfoHelp]

On Sat, 2004-07-03 at 21:44, Nick Rout wrote:
> 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.

Perhaps.. fruitless? A big job to give to who, & who'd pay the coders?

I gave up on academia because I couldn't see the point of (paying them
for reading lists, but mainly) doing abstract exercises when practical
ones teach you so much more, & offer a return.

So I see your point - GNU has no claim on non-GPL product, formally.

This would indicate eventual drift of all licensing toward private, it
seems. Each little bit & widget, when the user base is big enough to
support new version updates, would be charged for.

Hence the need to draw a line around the OS, & assert community
ownership therein. Logically, it would go too otherwise.

But your case is that informal title too is void, I gather.

> 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.

Agreed, although it's possible good programs could still be made for the
tasks, out of necessity - so then it is not fruitless. A contributor
framework is needed for this - we have one already - the point of GNU.

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

How is choice restricted by identifying the platform core? One may
choose other things as well as that.
> 
> 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.

Yes I saw that, 

> 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.

but don't remember your commands.

This is pretty confusing material, unless IAAL :-)

Sometime I will.

'Much easier to stand on principle' - you'd say there is none in GNU?

So why are we here?

The only drift I'm gathering is "GNU must stop existing"

This sounds like "free software is over"

Umm.. you do have the right to say that, & I have to defend your right
to say it.

Or are you wanting us to work up a fully GPL OS & software platform?

And get started soon?

Otherwise,
I'm missing something in understanding what you want from this list.

Please enlighten :-)

This is the best reply I can assemble with all the time I had.

Thanks for yours too.

-- 
GNU/Linux user ~ FedoraCore2 i686, kernel 2.6.5-1.358, GNOME 2.6 desktop
Evolution 1.4.6 email, Mozilla 1.6 browser, OpenOffice.org 1.1.1 suite ~