On Tue, Apr 08, 2003 at 07:35:39AM +0530, Raju Mathur wrote:
"RMS" == Richard Stallman rms@gnu.org writes:
RMS> Your response makes some good points--however, in order to be RMS> a true friend of the FSF, you should not call the whole RMS> system "Linux".Heretical as it may sound, I happen to believe that you can support freedom in software and GNU without nitpicking over nomenclature. I have been calling the OS Linux since I first used it in 1992, and shall continue to do so. I have also been a strong believer in and advocate of software freedom since I got my first GNU tape in 1988, and I still see no compelling reasons to associate a name with a concept.
Richard, I was (and, as would be obvious from the message you refer to, still am) deeply influenced by your original writings on why software should be free, the GNU Manifesto, etc. They changed the way I viewed software and, indirectly, the world. However since you bring it up repeatedly, I do believe that this insistence on the name of the OS is creating large amounts of mindless militant-ism, which is doing neither Linux nor the free software movement any good.
If the definition of being a true friend of the FSF is to `toe the party line' wrt the name of the OS, then I am definitely not a friend of the FSF. On the other hand, if being a `true friend' of the FSF means to write free software, to believe in free software, to promote free software and to advocate free software then I am one.
The issue is not to define who is a friend of FSF and who is not. (RMS's response unfortunately does suggest this implication though.) This is not the disagreement at all. The disagreement as I understand is because you see no compelling reason to associate a name with a concept. [You said: "I still see no compelling reasons to associate a name with a concept."]
Logically speaking, it is possible to separate a name with a concept. On that ground you do have a point. But history is not written on the basis of logical possibilities but actualities. Credits are not given to a movement on the basis of logical possibilities. Also, and more important FSF is not fighting for gaining logical freedom, but practical and actual freedom.
Can you tell us, as a person who genuinely beleive in software freedom, what is the compeelling non-logical reason for not associating software freedom with GNU?
I dont think you believe that GNU has not contributed enough. You may be thinking it is not necessary, but we think it is necessary (for non-logical reasons).
To further my argument that names are important and do carry with them a lot of meaning (and weight) may I seek the following clarification from you.
You may think that names do not matter for a movement. I think names, labels are very important, because names trigger a meaning in one's mind. Another reason why your stand is not reasonable is because, while you enjoy your (logical) freedom of dissociating a name from the concept of software freedom, you are in actual practice enjoying the practice of associating the concept of software freedom and the name `Linux'. Do you have a compelling non-logical reason for doing this?
Nagarjuna