Les Mikesell wrote:


I ran across a surprisingly perceptive description of the confusion of
GPL restrictions with freedom here:

http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/07/08/1832255&from=rss.


I quit reading that the first time after the second paragraph.
"Perceptive" is not what I thought of the author. The entire article is
a pompous straw-man argument. Find one place in that article where the
author cites any person who actually evinces the attitudes that he
attributes to the group he describes.


From my perspective, the difference between BSD and GPL authors is much
simpler than he describes. An author who chooses the BSD license has
decided that there will be no cost to other developers who want to reuse
his work in a work of their own. An author who chooses the GPL license
has decided that there is. The cost of using a GPL licensed work in
another work is reciprocation. We share with those who share with us.


Asking a price for your work is hardly Communist. That idea has always
been absurd.


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

Mark Haney wrote:


Personally, I think the demand by Stallman, and others to call Linux
'GNU/Linux' is just stupid and childish.


It isn't. Stallman's concern is for our Freedom to use the computers
that we purchase for our own ends and needs, rather than as dictated to
us by someone else. Linus has repeatedly shown that he doesn't care
about that Freedom, and RMS would be a fool to step aside and let Linus
act as a steward for it.


I wholeheartedly agree with Alexandre's assessment, but I tend to
describe my own reasoning much more tersely:


GNU/Linux is an operating system. It implements the interfaces
described by POSIX. Applications written to conform to that standard
will build and run on GNU/Linux.


Linux is a kernel. It implements no documented standard (and maintains
a policy against stable interfaces). Applications do not run on Linux.


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

Les Mikesell wrote:


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�


You're reading it incorrectly, by leaving out the question:

GNU is a small fraction of the system nowadays, so why should we
mention it?

GNU is arguing, in the quote you posted, that if it is inappropriate to
include GNU in the name for a GNU/Linux distribution, then it is even
more strongly inappropriate to call it "Linux". Linux is a much smaller
and less significant portion of a GNU/Linux distribution than GNU is.




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

Gordon Messmer <yinyang@eburg.com> writes:
> if it is inappropriate to include GNU in the name for a GNU/Linux
> distribution, then it is even more strongly inappropriate to call it
> "Linux".

I agree. Let's call it "Fedora" instead.

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

Gordon Messmer wrote:


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�


You're reading it incorrectly, by leaving out the question:

GNU is a small fraction of the system nowadays, so why should we
mention it?

GNU is arguing, in the quote you posted, that if it is inappropriate to
include GNU in the name for a GNU/Linux distribution, then it is even
more strongly inappropriate to call it "Linux". Linux is a much smaller
and less significant portion of a GNU/Linux distribution than GNU is.


It's not an either/or question. They are right that it is inappropriate
but in both cases, not just the straw man they set up. Call it Fedora,
call it freebsd, call it OpenSolaris, and leave politics out of it.


--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com

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

Gordon Messmer wrote:


I ran across a surprisingly perceptive description of the confusion of
GPL restrictions with freedom here:

http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/07/08/1832255&from=rss.


I quit reading that the first time after the second paragraph.
"Perceptive" is not what I thought of the author. The entire article is
a pompous straw-man argument. Find one place in that article where the
author cites any person who actually evinces the attitudes that he
attributes to the group he describes.


That's the point - the people who argue the point don't understand it
this way.


From my perspective, the difference between BSD and GPL authors is much
simpler than he describes. An author who chooses the BSD license has
decided that there will be no cost to other developers who want to reuse
his work in a work of their own. An author who chooses the GPL license
has decided that there is.


Which has the unavoidable side effect of making it impossible to reuse
that code in many situations.


The cost of using a GPL licensed work in
another work is reciprocation. We share with those who share with us.


And the side effect of this unneeded restriction is that much of the
code we all have to put up with is not optimal. And it ignores the
point that much of the best code we currently have would not exist if
any part of it had been GPL'd during development. That is, there is
plenty of code that is shared without GPL restrictions and plenty that
is shared now but wasn't always.


Asking a price for your work is hardly Communist. That idea has always
been absurd.


The price isn't the point at all, it is the restriction on reuse and
improvement in a large number of ways. And the real cost to society is
the lack of the things the restrictions prevent - at no gain to anyone.


--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com


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

Les Mikesell wrote:

Gordon Messmer wrote:


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�


You're reading it incorrectly, by leaving out the question:

GNU is a small fraction of the system nowadays, so why should we
mention it?

GNU is arguing, in the quote you posted, that if it is inappropriate
to include GNU in the name for a GNU/Linux distribution, then it is
even more strongly inappropriate to call it "Linux". Linux is a much
smaller and less significant portion of a GNU/Linux distribution than
GNU is.


It's not an either/or question. They are right that it is inappropriate
but in both cases, not just the straw man they set up. Call it Fedora,
call it freebsd, call it OpenSolaris, and leave politics out of it.


I don't think that they're arguing at all that it's inappropriate to
call it GNU/Linux. They're illustrating that the argument which is
often used for calling a system Linux -- that GNU is a small component
of a typical GNU/Linux distribution -- is a ridiculous argument, since
Linux is a much smaller component of the distribution.


Certainly, I have no objections referring to Red Hat's community
distribution as "Fedora", but when referring to distributions of
GNU/Linux systems in general or in aggregate, I do try to use the
appropriate name.



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

Les Mikesell wrote:

Gordon Messmer wrote:


I quit reading that the first time after the second paragraph.
"Perceptive" is not what I thought of the author. The entire article
is a pompous straw-man argument. Find one place in that article where
the author cites any person who actually evinces the attitudes that he
attributes to the group he describes.


That's the point - the people who argue the point don't understand it
this way.


The author was clearly presenting his own views of GPL developers, and
nothing else.


From my perspective, the difference between BSD and GPL authors is
much simpler than he describes. An author who chooses the BSD license
has decided that there will be no cost to other developers who want to
reuse his work in a work of their own. An author who chooses the GPL
license has decided that there is.


Which has the unavoidable side effect of making it impossible to reuse
that code in many situations.


And that's OK. That's the decision that the developers of GPL code have
made. Their code will be available to other developers who share their
values, and not to developers who don't. If you aren't interested in
allowing your users to modify the products that they buy from you, then
you can write your own software an license it however you choose.


GPL developers don't need to be told that the license prevents some
uses. They know that.


The cost of using a GPL licensed work in another work is
reciprocation. We share with those who share with us.


And the side effect of this unneeded restriction


The side effect of the unneeded restriction of $90k dollars for a
Mercedes is that I don't get to drive one. Cry me a river. Cooperation
is the cost of reusing GPL licensed software.


Close your eyes for a moment and picture a big red tag that reads:

$ COOPERATION

That's the GPL.

Asking a price for your work is hardly Communist. That idea has
always been absurd.


The price isn't the point at all, it is the restriction on reuse and
improvement in a large number of ways. And the real cost to society is
the lack of the things the restrictions prevent - at no gain to anyone.


The "restriction on reuse" IS the price. In return for the privilege of
building your products on the work that has been done by the community
of GPL developers, you must also license your derived works under a
compatible license which does not restrict the rights of the users to
whom you sell or distribute your software.


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

Gordon Messmer wrote:


It's not an either/or question. They are right that it is
inappropriate but in both cases, not just the straw man they set up.
Call it Fedora, call it freebsd, call it OpenSolaris, and leave
politics out of it.


I don't think that they're arguing at all that it's inappropriate to
call it GNU/Linux. They're illustrating that the argument which is
often used for calling a system Linux -- that GNU is a small component
of a typical GNU/Linux distribution -- is a ridiculous argument, since
Linux is a much smaller component of the distribution.


But it is equally ridiculous either way, when 80+% is neither GNU nor
Linux code. Calling it an xwindow system would make more sense. Or
perhaps a firefox/thunderbird/openoffice.org system - with most of the
other parts interchangeable.


--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com


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

Timothy Murphy wrote:

Gordon Messmer wrote:


Stallman's concern is for our Freedom to use the computers that we
purchase for our own ends and needs, rather than as dictated to us
by someone else. Linus has repeatedly shown that he doesn't care
about that Freedom, and RMS would be a fool to step aside and let

Linus act as a steward for it.


If you think Linux, or Linus, is unethical why do you run Linux? Or
even GNU/Linux? There are lots of other OS's.


Mostly because Linus isn't capable of screwing up the Freedom that's
guarded by the GPL.


That said, the problem with Linus isn't usually his antipathy for
Freedom, just his apathy. He'd make an awful steward for Free Software,
even if he's capable enough as a lead for the Linux kernel.


Just because I don't think he's fit for one specific job, don't infer
that I think he's unfit for every job.


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