[GNUz] “GNU”, “Linux”, or neither...?

[Rik Tindall]

Philip Charles wrote:
> On Tuesday 03 April 2007 19:54, Nick Rout wrote:
>> http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/blogs/gnu_linux_neither
> 
> The original article can be found here.
> 
> www.upgrade-cepis.org/issues/2005/3/up6-3Amor.pdf 

Great pointers, thanks guys. There's much to this.

1) Language. Quite commonly, "free software" is used referring to more 
than just GNU. Makes me wonder, is there resentment that FSF appear to 
attempt a monopoly of the term (regardless of if _we_ believe they do)?
Here, it puts the lie to the "libre" campaign to 'OSS'-strip out the 
cost-free option guaranteed by Freedom 2 (free distribution), because 
cost-free is (also) what is clearly meant under the "'GNU', 'Linux', or 
neither...?" question, despite the sliding argument to the contrary.

Pointedly, the 'researchers' "have a go at Debian" - for its defence of 
Freedom, no doubt?

2) http://libresoft.dat.escet.urjc.es/debian-counting/sarge/

As for the "SLOCCount Web for Debian Sarge.. [which] counts the number 
of source lines of code (by definition a line ending in a newline or 
end-of-file marker, and which contains at least one non-whitespace 
non-comment character)..", why should anyone respect monetising 
ideologues like this, when they completely fail to respect the 'value' 
of program documentation / 'comment'? Who'd work with them thus?

The telling phrase is "division by <i>value</i>", for seeing where the 
rebranding drive is taking us.

"..The fairest term for what we like about “GNU/Linux” is probably 
neither 'GNU' nor 'Linux', but rather just the “Free Software Operating 
System". - Almost fair, but 'a Freenix' O/S better (adds BSD). But best 
of all is the organically grown 'FOSS', which Wheeler's line sets out to 
attack - poorly.

"Free software operating systems are made valuable principally by the 
contribution of individual developers." - True. But will 'valuable' ever 
translate into cash payment?..

<obligatory spleen rant>

No, it's gloves off with the "libre" tOSSers, from now on. Especially 
the "Linux Australia" imperialist breed :) Complete enemies of Freedom, 
in word and deed - especially by any bogus 'Freedom Day' brand grab / 
expropriation? Because they can't keep their ignorant mitts off 
(cost-)Freedom? Selfish b*stards? Pirates have always worked that way.

Repeat: "Libre" has been introduced into English specifically to destroy
"Free" (as in Freedom) terminologically, for the self-defeating 
introduction of a yuppy charge-per-codeline. - Not wanted here thanks, 
by GNUz definition; *Not_at_all*!

</obligatory spleen rant>

For this learner, accepting how immense and diverse the FOSS field is 
explains much of the great contention encountered: there are many 
'valid' interpretations that serve mostly to confuse when they differ.

Recognising that "peace shall not reign", under F/loss, does deliver a 
kind of peace tho.

Will pick up from Jim's point next..

Cheers
-- 
Rik