I wrote:
> Claims to be GPLv2, but only the firmware loader is GPLv2 (actually dual
> GPLv2 or BSD).

Or rather, GPLv2+ or MIT.
So in total, the correct License tag for midisport-firmware would be:
(GPLv2+ or MIT) and Redistributable, no modification permitted

Kevin Kofler

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

> You're absolutely correct that some don't get credited by GNU+Linux,
> but how is that a logical reason to credit the smaller contributor
> Linux and not the larger contributor GNU?

I didn't say the larger contributors shouldn't get credited. I object
to the FSF asking for credit *only for them*. Asking for Linux
distros to be called GNU/Linux makes it sound like the FSF created
Linux, Firefox, Apache, Perl, Gnome, OO, and all those other big parts
of common distros. *That* I object to.

If the FSF wants to create their own distro that consists primarily of
the Linux kernel and the GNU software, they may call it GNU/Linux (or
anything else they choose . Asking for anything else to be called
GNU/Linux is pure hubris.

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 8:12 AM, Joe Klemmer <klemmerj@webtrek.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-07-14 at 07:40 -0400, Mark Haney wrote:
>
>> Personally, I think the demand by Stallman, and others to call Linux
>> 'GNU/Linux' is just stupid and childish. As if changing the name will
>> change the nature of the system. While I am an advocate of free and
>> open source software, and agree with some of his ideas, Stallman needs
>> a bloody valium. To me he's a lot like Jack Thompson, foams at the
>> mouth over the silliest things.
>
> While I personally think RMS is, well, let's say over zealous and leave
> it at that... He is what I'd call a necessary evil. He swings the
> pendulum so far the one direction that it keeps the whole thing449-442-806
> balanced. Irritating as he and his fellows may be, they do serve a
> needed purpose.

I think it is more honest to make reference to GNU/Linux or Linux/GNU.
Without both parts we would not have a working system to have this discussion
on. Linux systems would not exist without GNU tools, compiler and libs.

GNU+Linux+hardware = system

We _should_ pay attention to the shoulders of those that got us here!

--
NiftyFedora
T o m M i t c h e l l

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Alexandre Oliva wrote:



Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> writes:

RMS actually has a social reason for his request. What is the
reason behind those who refuse?



Respect for all the other organizations and authors who have
contributed to the packages within the various Linux-based
distributions, yet who do not get credited in the name "GNU/Linux" ?


Again, circular reasoning. You're talking about GNU+Linux-based
distributions. You're absolutely correct that some don't get credited
by GNU+Linux, but how is that a logical reason to credit the smaller
contributor Linux and not the larger contributor GNU? This is covered
in the FAQ, BTW, starting at
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#many


A rare bit of honesty there:

"In 2008, we found that GNU packages made up 15% of the “main�
repository of the gNewSense GNU/Linux distribution. Linux made
up 1.5%. So the same argument would apply even more strongly
to calling it “Linux�

Why not name it something that gives the appropriate credit to the 83.5%
that has nothing to do with GNU instead of usurping the name and
pretending that GNU is necessary or even desirable in the process of
creating redistributable software? Or at least focus the credit on gcc
which has been something of a driving force because the alternatives
were expensive.


--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler <at> chello.at> writes:

>
> Alexandre Oliva <aoliva <at> redhat.com> writes:
> > If you find any such problems in BLAG 80000 (never formally released)
> > or BLAG 90000 (released easier today), please report them.
>
> Here's some I found at a quick glance:

Thank you for your research! We have over 10,000 packages in our BLAG 90000
repository (based on fedora 9), so things do get missed.

My approach is to generate a list of acceptable %{LICENSE} tags, in their
various forms (GPL, GPLv2, GPLv3, MIT, Public Domain, etc). That list has 383
valid license tags!

I then run a script which goes through the various repos and adds all the
packages with licenses that are acceptable to the Free Software Foundation.

If the packages you mention are included in BLAG and contain non-free software,
this is likely due to them being tagged with an incorrect license. Their
inclusion, if they are non-free, is considered a BUG and they will be removed. I
will go through the packages on your list to confirm your report. I do
appreciate it, as I actually hate licensing issues! I merely want Free Software!

I'll also note that there is *Free* firmware for some drivers, so just because
something is labelled firmware doesn't mean it's not free.

Thanks!

-Jeff

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

> I didn't say the larger contributors shouldn't get credited. I object
> to the FSF asking for credit *only for them*. Asking for Linux
> distros to be called GNU/Linux makes it sound like the FSF created
> Linux, Firefox, Apache, Perl, Gnome, OO, and all those other big parts
> of common distros. *That* I object to.

Just putting it out there, but Gnome is a GNU project... or at least it
was before the GNOME Foundation was created, and is still advertised as
such on GNU's site.

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler <at> chello.at> writes:

>
> I wrote:
> > Claims to be GPLv2, but only the firmware loader is GPLv2 (actually dual
> > GPLv2 or BSD).
>
> Or rather, GPLv2+ or MIT.
> So in total, the correct License tag for midisport-firmware would be:
> (GPLv2+ or MIT) and Redistributable, no modification permitted

This would actually be a bug in Fedora then and should have a bugzilla ticket
opened there. As I go thru your list I will open upstream bug reports if you
don't beat me to it. plz beat me to it?

Thanks again,

-Jeff

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Francis Earl <francis.earl@gmail.com> writes:
> Just putting it out there, but Gnome is a GNU project... or at least it
> was before the GNOME Foundation was created, and is still advertised as
> such on GNU's site.

GNOME is still part of the GNU project.

"GNOME is Free Software and part of the GNU project, dedicated to giving
users and developers the ultimate level of control over their desktops,
their software, and their data. Find out more about the GNU project and
Free Software at gnu.org."

Source: http://www.gnome.org/about/

--
Join the Fellowship and protect your freedom! (http://fsfe.org/join)

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 1:59 PM, Bjoern Schiessle <bes@schiessle.org> wrote:
> Francis Earl <francis.earl@gmail.com> writes:
>> Just putting it out there, but Gnome is a GNU project... or at least it
>> was before the GNOME Foundation was created, and is still advertised as
>> such on GNU's site.
>
> GNOME is still part of the GNU project.
>
> "GNOME is Free Software and part of the GNU project, dedicated to giving
> users and developers the ultimate level of control over their desktops,
> their software, and their data. Find out more about the GNU project and
> Free Software at gnu.org."
>
> Source: http://www.gnome.org/about/

"ultimate level of control over their desktops" I have to say I am
surprised to hear/read that.


--
Fedora 7 : sipping some of that moonshine
( www.pembo13.com )

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

On Jul 15, 2008, DJ Delorie <dj@delorie.com> wrote:

> I object to the FSF asking for credit *only for them*.

Then you object to something they don't do.
And that's covered in the FAQ as well.
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#justgnu

> Asking for Linux distros to be called GNU/Linux makes it sound like
> the FSF created Linux

How so?

I read it as the GNU [operating system] on top of [the kernel] Linux,
which is a very precise description of the situation.

http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#whyslash


Anyhow, does GNU+Linux alleviate that perception?


> Firefox, Apache, Perl, Gnome, OO, and all those other big parts
> of common distros. *That* I object to.

Why don't you object to calling those Linux, then?

It's not like Mozilla was created for GNU/Linux. Or Apache. Or Perl.
Or Gnome. Or OOo.

Why do you think it's any more right to call them Linux than
GNU+Linux?

Please check any argument you use to reject naming the system after a
primary contributor, and note that it probably applies just as well to
naming it after any other contributor.

> If the FSF wants to create their own distro that consists primarily of
> the Linux kernel and the GNU software, they may call it GNU/Linux (or
> anything else they choose . Asking for anything else to be called
> GNU/Linux is pure hubris.

http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#gnudist

--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list