Re: [PLUG] RMS and GNU/sink (was: systrace is cool)

[Jason <jason@nocks.com>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Friday 14 June 2002 20H:28, Noah Silva wrote:
> Ok, for you and me, perhaps something like glibc is more important than
> something like gnome.  (although since I mainly use pascal, which has
> much of the glibc stuff in the SYSTEM unit, this is questionable...).
> To end users though, shell utilities are something they prefer not to
> see, and without things like gnome and mozilla are more important.  From
> a GUI developer point of view, QT could be just as important as glibc.
> Perhaps QT won'r wotk without glibc, but then glibc won't work without
> the an OS kernal.  The fact remains that while what RMS has made is
> useful, it is a link in the chain.  Why does the middle deserve more
> mention than the top or the bottom?
>
> GPL says GPL things shouldn't leave GPL.  It doesn't say that GPL things
> have to all be named with the prefix "GNU/".
>
>  -- noah silva
>

Arguably, the contribution with the largest impact from RMS is the GPL. Not 
much code in there, and a very large impact for such a short document. So, 
it's not the amount of code, but the impact.

You could also argue that the Linux kernel is GPL'd, whereas I believe that 
NetBSD, OpenBSD, FreeBSD still use a BSD-style license, no?

If there were no system library, no compiler, no utilities, how far would 
things have gone (what if there was no free/open GNU or BSD components)? What 
if you needed a $1000 plus somewhat proprietary Unix to start with that you 
could just replace the kernel? How many people would have been interested in 
AT&T Linux, SCO Linux, etc.? Years later, maybe...

RMS places a large emphasis on free as in freedom. IMHO, economic issues have 
also been a large motivating force. It's not just a coincidence that 
GNU/Linux gained so much popularity on PCs. What's cheaper than a PC clone?

Also, the availability of software distribution over the Internet clearly 
played a huge role. It's also no coincidence that the GNU/Linux system really 
took off in conjunction with the spread of Internet connectivity.

I get a little tired of hearing a lot of people whining about "RMS whining". I 
don't think he's really whining at all. I think one of the main points is 
that you had to agree to the terms of the GNU Public License to use the 
"Linux" kernel. There are some important things to consider when you pick a 
license, either as a developer or as a user. And, oh, by the way, there's a 
large portion of essential OS components that were developed by GNU/FSF 
sponsored developers. And, the only real "payment" that many free software 
developers get is "credit" (see ESR).

I don't think Linus knew a great deal about these types of issues when he 
picked the GPL. According to him, growing up in Finland was vastly different. 
I don't think many people other than RMS had given free/open licensing nearly 
as much thought before the early 90s.

It would be interesting to replay history with the Linux kernel release under 
a totally different license and see how things played out. But, until someone 
releases TimeMachine 1.0, I guess we'll never know how things would be 
different. But you will choose a GPL License when you release TimeMachine 
1.0, won't you? -Just a little attempt at humor...

Just my $.02,
- -Jason Nocks
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iEYEARECAAYFAj0Ly64ACgkQ3CryLfCgqRnbVwCfWctOVHVP6d56Iykmawsqtvl1
094An1sArNmcI91ttCa4xnPAmcGoQFdD
=21Nu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


______________________________________________________________________
Philadelphia Linux Users Group       -      http://www.phillylinux.org
Announcements-http://lists.phillylinux.org/mail/listinfo/plug-announce
General Discussion  -  http://lists.phillylinux.org/mail/listinfo/plug