On Tue, Apr 08, 2003 at 01:45:12PM +0530, Raju Mathur wrote:
"NG" == Nagarjuna G nagarjun@hbcse.tifr.res.in writes:
NG> 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. NG> The issue is not to define who is a friend of FSF and who is NG> not. (RMS's response unfortunately does suggest this NG> implication though.) This is not the disagreement at all. The NG> disagreement as I understand is because you see no compelling NG> reason to associate a name with a concept. [You said: "I NG> still see no compelling reasons to associate a name with a NG> concept."] NG> Logically speaking, it is possible to separate a name with a NG> concept. On that ground you do have a point. But history is NG> not written on the basis of logical possibilities but NG> actualities. Credits are not given to a movement on the basis NG> of logical possibilities. Also, and more important FSF is not NG> fighting for gaining logical freedom, but practical and actual NG> freedom. NG> Can you tell us, as a person who genuinely beleive in software NG> freedom, what is the compeelling non-logical reason for not NG> associating software freedom with GNU?I would happily call the OS GNU/Linux if it weren't for two underlying assumptions:
- That calling the OS GNU/Linux is helping spread the message of
freedom. In my opinion (which is much more valuable to me that anyone else's) it is having precisely the opposite effect.
I dont agree. Infact ever since I called the system GNU/Linux I managed to invoke more interest in GNU philosophy and spread the message that freedom matters more effectively. Many people began connecting the GNU to Linux in that way.
May I question your assumption: Calling the OS Linux will or helping spread the message of freedom.
This I guess you dont believe. Linus never said he is doing what he is doing it because he loves freedom. If Linus ever preached software freedom then the semantics of the term `Linux' would have had the freedom connotation. The fact is that it had no such connotation. On the other hand the connotation of hacking is closely associated with `Linux'. But every hacker is not a freedom lover. Then how do you think calling exclusively Linux will spread the message better than linking it with GNU. Linking with GNU undoubtedly spreads the message of freedom.
- That calling the OS GNU/Linux is a prerequisite for being
able to have a rational and reasonable discussion in this (or any FSF-sponsored) forum.
This is not a prerequisite. That is why whenever people dont call the system GNU/Linux, we make an appeal. Aren't we reasanable to make this appeal, again and again. We never blocked anyone for participating in the discussions when they called the system Linux. There are many people who understand the reasons and they do call the system GNU/Linux, not to satisfy us, but after getting convinced. Dont you think in the course of this deliberation the person concerned read more about the free software philosophy than before. Several of them told us that they never looked at the ideological aspect before we told them. It was an occassion of eye opener fo them.
I strongly believe in freedom, including my freedom to call the OS Linux and yours to call it GNU/Linux. Do not try to take that freedom away from me, in however restricted a context.
You know that freedom as it is used in the context is defined by the four freedoms. Nothing more nothing less. The above freedom that you are talking about is not a software freedom. This absolute freedom should not be confused with software freedom.
For instance, I founded the India Linux Users Group, Delhi (ILUG-Delhi). We don't call ourselves the India GNU/Linux Users Group, but we don't force people to call the OS either Linux or GNU/Linux. It is a matter of personal choice. We prefer to spread the message of freedom in other, perhaps more effective, ways.
The reason why it concerns us is because you are not an agnostic on this issue, you are actually preaching the other usage. Deciding to call the users group by excluding GNU is not a matter of personal choice. It is a political stand that your group took. My intellect cannot understand how this exclusion helps propogate freedom.
You have failed to explain how calling the system Linux alone promotes freedom.
Nagarjuna