[GNUz] GNU/Linux ...

[Nick Rout]

On Sat, July 3, 2004 10:55 pm, InfoHelp said:
> 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 t=
o
>> >> understand that Free doesn't mean gratis. (That's why RMS pushes th=
e
>> >> 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 be=
st
>> > 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.
>

it has no claim on gpl product either. you could use the gpl and have
nothing to do with gnu. like linus did.

> 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.
>


why do you say that? there are plenty of people coding under various
"free" / "open" licenses,if anything the trend is away from closed
licenses.

> 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.
>

don't know what you mean by that.

>> 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 th=
e
> 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.

yes programs can be re-written, but why re-write the examples i gave
(apache, an MTA etc) to bring them into the gnu/fsf fold just for purity'=
s
sake?


>
>> 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.

sorry i though you were discussing the prospect of a linux distro with
solely gnu software (plus the kernel of course). My point is that such a
concept would be unduly restrictive (IMHO)

>>
>> 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 :-)

the point was to show you how much non GPL software there is on your
system and see if you could  do without it.

>
> Sometime I will.
>
> 'Much easier to stand on principle' - you'd say there is none in GNU?
>

what? when did i say that there was no principle in the gnu philosphy?

> So why are we here?
>
> The only drift I'm gathering is "GNU must stop existing"

your interpretation is bizarre

>
> This sounds like "free software is over"

and gets more so...

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


but i didn't say it rik. i am simply saying that gnu is not the be all an=
d
end all of eveerything. it is part of a movement, buut it is not the
movement.

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

sorry i thought you wanted a platform made of gnu software only

> And get started soon?
>
> Otherwise,
> I'm missing something in understanding what you want from this list.
>
> Please enlighten :-)
>

sensible debate.

> 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 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
>