On 1/11/07, Leo <sdl.web@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Compliant with" is not the same as "exclusively licensed as". GNU/Linux pays homage to egos, but does nothing to foster adoption of Fedora. There are some very important apps that have nothing to do with the GPL, other than being compliant. We wouldn't call it GNU/MPL/Apache/Linux, so we shouldn't call it GNU/Linux just to pacify a group of people that are smart enough to know that it's a license. I do understand that the FSF doesn't think it's fair to name the whole OS after the kernel, but dropping "Linux" from the title makes as much sense as adding GNU if you're going to head down that road. The problem we have to live with, is that the majority of the world calls the entire OS "Linux", for better or worse. It's probably fair to call the kernel GNU/Linux, but calling the whole OS GNU/Linux makes even less sense than naming the whole thing after the kernel. Fedora is what it is because of the package of decisions that go into what is part of the OS makes it so, not just b/c it's GNU/GPL compliant. One might further argue that Linux has "paid" GNU back with exposure and adoption it may well have never gotten.
We also have to face facts that the GNU/Linux v. Linux debate is rhetoric to most people. And the reputation of those who most publicly back it is that of being zealots. The debate and associated zealotry is a turn off. Just like "free software" v. "open source". Do we want to pacify existing geeks? Who are no more or less likely to use Fedora GNU/Linux b/c of a name change (that does nothing to add to the core philosphy, which is what matters). Or attract users? GNU/Linux does help accomplish the former, but at the possible expense of the latter.
--jeremy
* Jeremy Hogan (2007-01-10 20:27 -0500) said:
^^^^^^^^^^^^
> GNU/Linux isn't as Googlicious as Fedora Linux would be. Plus given
> the number of non-gpl and non-gnu components
I'd say that's a small number that is not compliant with GPL.
That's exactly why we should name the system GNU.
"Compliant with" is not the same as "exclusively licensed as". GNU/Linux pays homage to egos, but does nothing to foster adoption of Fedora. There are some very important apps that have nothing to do with the GPL, other than being compliant. We wouldn't call it GNU/MPL/Apache/Linux, so we shouldn't call it GNU/Linux just to pacify a group of people that are smart enough to know that it's a license. I do understand that the FSF doesn't think it's fair to name the whole OS after the kernel, but dropping "Linux" from the title makes as much sense as adding GNU if you're going to head down that road. The problem we have to live with, is that the majority of the world calls the entire OS "Linux", for better or worse. It's probably fair to call the kernel GNU/Linux, but calling the whole OS GNU/Linux makes even less sense than naming the whole thing after the kernel. Fedora is what it is because of the package of decisions that go into what is part of the OS makes it so, not just b/c it's GNU/GPL compliant. One might further argue that Linux has "paid" GNU back with exposure and adoption it may well have never gotten.
We also have to face facts that the GNU/Linux v. Linux debate is rhetoric to most people. And the reputation of those who most publicly back it is that of being zealots. The debate and associated zealotry is a turn off. Just like "free software" v. "open source". Do we want to pacify existing geeks? Who are no more or less likely to use Fedora GNU/Linux b/c of a name change (that does nothing to add to the core philosphy, which is what matters). Or attract users? GNU/Linux does help accomplish the former, but at the possible expense of the latter.
--jeremy
-- Fedora-marketing-list mailing list Fedora-marketing-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-marketing-list
