[GNUz] How does GLU/GNUz differ from CLUG?

[Rik Tindall]

Jim Cheetham wrote:
> On 21/03/07, Rik Tindall <ask@infohelp.co.nz> wrote:
>> > http://directory.fsf.org/GNU/
>> "5,308 packages indexed"? - the list may be incomplete. e.g. KDE
> 
> No, this is a list of "GNU Project" software, not a list of
> "GPL-licensed" software. The point was to illustrate the difference
> between the historical input of GNU and the current input.

Yes, and my point was only that the page looks a lot shorter than "5,308 
packages". So what has been "indexed" - another list that long?

> You strongly promote GNU - I'm not convinced that they are _currently_
> worthy of that level of support :-)

Fair enough, and maybe we can help with that - a greater justification 
for GNU's continuance, through subscription, coding contributions, etc.

I do detect a strong tenor of resistance to any such move however. Most 
in what I have had to write has been about fending that off, and we're 
far from finished with the rebuttal as yet..

>> I think this is what Tim's getting at really, that anti-DRM, bad
>> Vista, etc. etc. is now the higher FSF purpose, from an O/S bedrock.
>> Formalising ourselves gives a basis for engaging on all those terms. But
>> GPLv3 is probably the main issue we are squaring up for; a healthy
>> process is required.
> 
> FSF != GNU
> 
> "GNUz" => GNU
> "FSANZ" => FSF

I seem to be too simple in not unpacking these. While able to see each 
component as distinct, as you describe, I haven't grasped any utility in 
doing so. (Other than 'to help kill off a [supposedly] dead idea'.)

Also, see DRAFT-1 http://www.infohelp.co.nz/fsanz-constitution.html as 
of today (bookmarking recommended). Clarity has been introduced re this 
orientation for the association.

> Your proposed constitution doesn't say "GPL only", and as such may
> well allow support for the FSF-blessed licenses ("Free Software",
> which != OSI blessed licenses, .: != "Open Source")

I don't yet see why it should. Can you draft an Object line that would 
encapsulate the direction we are needing to take please, in satisfying 
this point?

>> > GNU's Not Unix, and at this rate they never will be. What is GNU? A
>> > kernel, a shell, Emacs, and the tools to build more.
>>
>> Glad to have the contrary case to an A/NZ FSF branch spelled out so
>> clearly. Can't see any option but to persevere with it, nonetheless.
> 
> Well, that's another instance of GNU != FSF :-)

Response as made above.

It's about taking full advantage of the 'viral GPL' rampant success, in 
spurning Ballmer and Gates.

Cheers
-- 
Rik