| gabriel rosenkoetter on Sat, 15 Jun 2002 01:20:14 +0200 |
|
On Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 06:53:49PM -0400, Noah Silva wrote: > The other thing is this: I also run openoffice. I use gnome (what RMS > wrote all of that too??), but I have KDE installed. I also have > mozilla, etc. Oh wait, and selinux, and Kylix, and SAPDB, and apache. > > By RMS's logic, it should be: > GNU/Sun/Netscape/TrollTech/SecureComputing/Borland/SAP/Apache/Linux No, you're stretching his meaning further than it goes. Those are *minor* components of the operating system (well, I guess Gnome would be debatable for some people, but I think you'd probably agree that a GUI is just useless fluff; sorry Ian... it's *pretty* useless fluffy though!), whereas the basic, POSIX-standard userland tools are a much more important part of an operable OS. > and, Apple's OS shouldn't be called "Apple Mac OS", it should be "Apple > BSD/Mac OS". No it shouldn't. RMS is making his demand along the same line as the "GPLed code can't leave the GPL" line of reasoning. BSD source isn't licensed the same way at all. As long as Apple states copyright of the code (hell, even Microsoft does this for the 4.2BSD TCP/IP stack, presuming they're still using it), they're doing what was asked of them. > But apache? QT? you get the point. No, I don't. Apache's just another application (and only *one*, and it itself wouldn't work without the basic userland there), and QT is a fluff library (which *really* wouldn't work without a userland). Give me real meat and potatoes. Remember, Linux's libc is *also* a GNU thing. -- gabriel rosenkoetter gr@eclipsed.net Attachment:
pgpEofZBOJaCT.pgp
|
|