RE: GNU-Linux vs Linux naming [was RE: LAM/MPI Parallel processing]

["Stephen J. Turnbull" <turnbull@example.com>]

>>>>> "Jonathan" == Jonathan Shore <jshore@example.com> writes:

    Jonathan> The same reasoning applies - if you insist on putting
    Jonathan> GNU before all of the distributions then you had better
    Jonathan> put the N other siginificant contributers there also.

Reread my post and see what I'm insisting on.

    Jonathan> Let's face it RMS is a whinny sob - really pathetic to
    Jonathan> see someone carrying on like that.

That's what they say about all the voices crying in the wilderness.

    Jonathan> RMS did some great stuff with the original gcc, bison,
    Jonathan> and emacs (nevermind the xemacs vs emacs war), but
    Jonathan> frankly little else of the gnu distribution was good.

The point is not the quality of the code.  Sure, a lot of the code is
crap.  So what?  It half-way works, _and it's all in one place_.
That's how Windows beats Linux on the desktop, you know.

GNU invented the open source distribution.

As for the kernel itself, no GNU, no Linux.  Simple as that.  Read up
on what Linus himself says.  Sure, he would have written the kernel
anyway, but it's unlikely it would have seen the light of day.  There
wouldn't have been any Cygnus.  The BSD distros themselves would not
exist---they got the idea from GNU.

    Jonathan> Some of the code there is pure crap.  Later other
    Jonathan> independently developed open source packages were added
    Jonathan> to gnu (unfortunately).

Paybacks, my friend.  One can dislike the man intensely (I do), and
still greatly honor his life's work, and want to contribute to it.

It's also the cheapest way to enforce your copyright.  I've signed
papers for some of my stuff, and I don't regret it.  Stuff I intend to
maintain myself, I probably won't sign papers for.

    Jonathan> Stupid stuff like this and the ever more out-of-place
    Jonathan> GNU copyleft makes me hope that GNU fades into oblivion.

Not likely; copyleft licenses get more popular all the time.  The MPL,
IBM, CVW, and Ricoh licenses are all copyleft; I believe QPL is
copyleft (but "you don't have permission to access /qpl/" sez
TrollTech, ROTFLMAO).

    Jonathan> Frankly the GNU copyleft is more onerous than even some
    Jonathan> of the open-source commercial licenses I've seen.  I
    Jonathan> only hope that more people use a more liberal copyright
    Jonathan> and that fewer put their source with GNU.

Who's whining now?  On second thought, I'll take that back, toriaezu.

What are the benefits you see to the open source movement of using a
non-copyleft license?


-- 
University of Tsukuba                Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences       Tel/fax: +81 (298) 53-5091
_________________  _________________  _________________  _________________
What are those straight lines for?  "XEmacs rules."