my 2 euro cents : "Branko Collin" <collin@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > For those who do not know: the OS Linux was built by Linux Torvalds > in 1991. He basically only built a kernel and used parts of the GNU > project to pad it out to a complete OS. People started calling the > whole OS Linux. At this the founder of GNU, Richard Stallman, balked, > because he feels that the OS is as much his as Linus' and that he > deserves credit for it. He would like to see that credit in the shape > of the OS being called GNU/Linux rather than just Linux. well, i don't agree at 100%: rms arguments've drawbacks. gnu softwares're NOT the majority of free softwares in a distro. eg, in mandrake, only looking at sources rpms, they're: - GPL: 851 (of which an estimated one third is from gnu) - LGPL: 91 - BSD: 87 - various free licences: 62 - Artistic: 47 - MIT: 35 - public domain : 29 - freeware: 12 - mpl: 13 - Apache: 11 - OpenSource: 4 - qpl:4 - opl: 2 - fdl: 2 so should we speak of gnu-bsd-mpl-qpl-artistic/linux ? or, as gpl softwares number is greater than gnu/fsf ones, should we speak of gpl/linux ? let do not be semantic fanatics :-) important is to make free software, to make people use them, not to auto-flaming the communauty ! rms, the fsf and the gnu project've been a big step in the right direction and we should be thanks them forever for that; but they're not the source of ALL free softwares: somes cames from bsd-land, others're released under various free licences, ... a free software can be released under the gpl without be part of the gnu project :-) eg: linux sources're as big as gcc or glibc ones, but smaller than XFree86 ones which're bigger than the three first ones. the three first ones're gpled but the fourth is released under a MIT license. only gcc and glibc're part of the gnu project. despite not being released under gpl nor being part of the gnu project, XFree86 is still a free software. afaic gnu/linux is as good as linux: they're both mis-named :-) > I grepped the current stable CVS (well, that of a few weeks ago) and > found that a few files (mostly of the documentation type) mention > Linux instead of GNU/Linux. afaic, both're correct even if they're not 100% correct. the gnu/linux spelling has the advantage to highlight the free software ethic. nothing more. -- Still untested beyond 'it compiles' (davej)
