SUCH views only further the ideology of proprietorial software, while confusing the subject and furthering the man-works-for-money-alone idea. It also flies in the face of thousands of excellent programmers chosing the GPL as their licence of choice. Perhaps someone needs to be countering this. FN
--__--__--
Message: 1 Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 23:07:00 -0800 (PST) From: Sukrit D sd_root@yahoo.com To: little_league@yahoogroups.com Cc: Kanhaiya Dalmia dalmiag@vsnl.net, Chennai ILUG ilugc@aero.iitm.ernet.in Subject: [Ilugc] Is the GPL completely misunderstood?
Is the GPL completely misunderstood?
What is the GPL?
The GPL, GNU General Public License, is a license boilerplate that the FSF, Free Software Foundation, has put forward to be adopted by software developers that are creating software. The GPL has some fundamental flaws that may actually make one wonder if people using the GPL license really understand the license.
First, one must understand that the ideals behind the GPL are that software should be 'free', meaning that you should be able to buy it, modify it, redistribute it, support it, etc. Many people, myself included, didn't really understand the license agreement and it is obvious that the FSF must get dozens of questions like that because they hide behind a boilerplate link to a page on their site.
Therein lies one major hurdle. Another problem is that many people are under the impression that if it is GPL, the software should carry no cost. The FSF says that nothing could be further from the truth, however, the GPL ingeniously assures this because of its distribution clause. The first person to buy an application is generously allowed to distribute the code and the source, removing any financial incentive from original software author.
Even the FSF has no idea how to build a business around software that is released GPL. I posed that question, and their response was fuzzy and vague. It was suggested that I run a different division to fund the software development division. As a business owner, why run a division that is a cost center if it isn't needed.
With that in mind, lets consider a few scenarios dealing with GPL software. The FSF clearly states that someone can charge whatever amount they want for software and the source code. So, you take a contract with a company to develop software, do the right thing and release it GPL. You sell it to your client for $500, thinking, I spent dozens of hours writing this, I'll put a reasonable cost on there so that I can resell hundreds of them.
Fair enough.
But, what happens if I, as a client, buy your software along with the source and decide, hey, this is good stuff, let me sell it for $100 and flood the market. What happens to your income? It is gone. Someone else is making the money off your product -- your efforts. Even better, I can decide to distribute the software at no cost. And what you have to show for it is a license that allows your clients to do precisely that. Freedom.
Lets analyze the flip side. Lets say that you decide to write the software and charge the client for every minute of your work. The client ends up with a software product that cost them $40000. Now, you decide that you want to resell that software. What price do you put on it knowing that your next client could decide to distribute it? If you cut the price too much, the client that paid you to do the development won't rehire you since you have given his competitor the tools to compete more easily. Companies generally dislike funding software development for their competitors.
How about an idea you have that will revolutionize the world. Don't release that under GPL, there is no intellectual property protection. Have some secret way of doing something that is better than the way it is currently being done? Might as well just get rid of your competitive edge because the GPL will strip you of any rights you might have to that.
See, the GPL in its Marxist form is a fine thought, but what does it really do?
The GPL creates hundreds of software products that are mimic's of their commercial counterpart, many of which are poor imitations. Yes, I know, the market is new and there are years of existing software development to catch up with. But, most of these software developers have a job and do this as a hobby or are paid by a company to write software released under the GPL. But what have we done? We've turned over development to armchair developers. This isn't to say that there aren't good software projects developed under GPL, but they are in the minority.
Without singling out any application, there is a software package that makes it truly evident that the programmers have no concept what the finished product is supposed to do or what the program they are mimicing actually does. It appears as if they have gotten together to develop a product to mimic a Microsoft product, pushed all of the buttons to see what the results are, and tried to imitate the actions. Push a button and see no visible result? Who knows how that button is supposed to work. We'll leave it in, but there's no code behind it. There is a lot of software that mimic's Microsoft, and yet, time after time, these are the same people that complain about Microsoft and what they do wrong. Then, to top it off, since they released it GPL, they ask for donations. Wait? Can't Freedom have a price?
These authors don't know that they can charge money for their software and still release it GPL. Of course, after the first client, it will get redistributed at some nominal cost or free. Imagine, the first person that needs a program will buy it and then post it on the net for people to get without cost. Almost no different than the Commercial software market as it exists today. Ok, chalk up one licensed user that paid for the software. Authors ask for donations or have service contracts. Some applications are decidedly cryptic just so you have to buy the service contract or installation help. Why? Because the author needs to make some money for their efforts and have a financial reward that justifies the continued development of the project.
Most of the people writing GPL software probably have never read the license. How can you expect them to? Everyone is told to slap the boilerplate agreement at the top because 'GPL good, other license bad,' but how many people that use the license have actually read it?
The GPL has created a dearth of poorly conceived, poorly maintained, poorly written software. There are also quite a few good GPL applications. Suffice it to say, that most of the applications that are good and are GPL usually have corporate roots. I surmise that most of the companies releasing software under the GPL are not releasing their code under the GPL for the right reasons.
The people that slam Microsoft for all that it is are the same ones mimicing Microsoft's applications. Certain applications are designed specifically to look like Microsoft, which is the sincerest form of flattery. Yet, people slam Microsoft because they don't innovate. Well, look at most of the GPL software that mimic's what is out there already? Where is the innovation in that? That's what I thought.
I don't have a problem with the GPL -- it just doesn't happen to be my license of choice. I evaluated the licenses and felt that the GPL didn't protect me or my clients well enough. Most of the code my company produces is released under an Open Source license. Open Source I don't mind. Draconian terms and conditions that sacrifice my rights as an author, or my clients rights, or make it easy for people to avoid compensating me for my efforts is where I have a problem.
<Sarcasm> Unlike most GPL software authors, I am not independently wealthy. I don't have a trust fund handing me money every month. I don't have a rich family writing a check to keep me locked away in a basement churning out code. I don't have a fellowship with an educational institution or sponsorship from a big corporation so that I jet around the world espousing the ideals, writing and releasing code under the GPL. </Sarcasm>
If you develop software that allows someone to make millions of dollars from your efforts, why should you not be entitled to some of that money? What if you write the next killer ap, distribute it, someone else finds a VC, gets capital, goes public, gets rich -- all on your idea? Notoriety is fine, but your bank doesn't accept that when you are paying your mortgage.
In short, I don't believe the GPL serves the software development community in the best possible manner. By virtue, it eliminates financial motivation from those writing software and drives those development costs on existing industry. You may volunteer your time, but your employer ultimately finances your ability to have the time to write that code. Who really carries the true development cost of the software?
If you want the dream of Linux on the desktop to take off more quickly, take the time to explain how a company developing GPL software can protect itself and earn money to pay its programmers and support staff. If you work for a company writing GPL software, take some time to think where your salary ultimately comes from. Help develop a business plan to allow companies to develop software and release the products under an Open Source license that ensures the viability of the company. If you want
Next time you write an application, give some thought to your licensing. A good place to start reading the different licenses is Open Source.Org.
--Chris
"Fred" == Frederick Noronha <(FN)" fred@bytesforall.org> writes:
Fred> SUCH views only further the ideology of proprietorial Fred> software, while confusing the subject and furthering the Fred> man-works-for-money-alone idea. It also flies in the face of Fred> thousands of excellent programmers chosing the GPL as their Fred> licence of choice. Perhaps someone needs to be countering Fred> this. FN
>> --__--__-- >> >> Message: 1 Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 23:07:00 -0800 (PST) From: >> Sukrit D sd_root@yahoo.com To: little_league@yahoogroups.com >> Cc: Kanhaiya Dalmia dalmiag@vsnl.net, Chennai ILUG >> ilugc@aero.iitm.ernet.in Subject: [Ilugc] Is the GPL >> completely misunderstood? >> >> Is the GPL completely misunderstood? >> >> What is the GPL? >> >> [snip]
For my rejoinder, see: http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd@wpaa.org/msg04611.html
If anyone wants to tell me about the name I use for the operating system, please do so in private mail so I can safely consign your messages to /dev/null. Intelligent responses, of course, would always be welcome.
Regards,
-- Raju
Your response makes some good points--however, in order to be a true friend of the FSF, you should not call the whole system "Linux".
"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.
You decide which definition is more valid.
Regards,
-- Raju
It is certainly possible to advocate freedom in software and call the system "Linux". I believe that you do. It is also possible to contribute to development of the GNU system in specific ways while calling the system "Linux". It could well be that you have. But it is impossible to be a true supporter of the GNU Project, or a friend of the FSF, while calling our work by a name that attributes it to someone else. That is treating us very badly.
The basic ethical question of the software field is whether your software is free is; that is the question of how you treat the general public. How you treat the FSF and the GNU Project is a lesser question--but it does matter to us. So even while we recognize that you sincerely support the cause of free software, we cannot accept in a list under FSF auspices your practice of attributing our system to someone else.
"RMS" == Richard Stallman rms@gnu.org writes:
RMS> It is certainly possible to advocate freedom in software and RMS> call the system "Linux". I believe that you do. It is also RMS> possible to contribute to development of the GNU system in RMS> specific ways while calling the system "Linux". It could RMS> well be that you have. But it is impossible to be a true RMS> supporter of the GNU Project, or a friend of the FSF, while RMS> calling our work by a name that attributes it to someone RMS> else. That is treating us very badly.
RMS> The basic ethical question of the software field is whether RMS> your software is free is; that is the question of how you RMS> treat the general public. How you treat the FSF and the GNU RMS> Project is a lesser question--but it does matter to us. So RMS> even while we recognize that you sincerely support the cause RMS> of free software, we cannot accept in a list under FSF RMS> auspices your practice of attributing our system to someone RMS> else.
Firstly there is the whole question of whether Linux is primarily the work of the GNU project or the FSF. Most people, including those who are aware of the history of Linux and GNU prefer to attribute Linux to Linus Torvalds. It is only a handful of people in the FSF who claim that Linus actually wrote the kernel for the GNU operating system and that hence the OS must be called GNU/Linux.
Even if we leave the origin of Linux aside for a moment we are faced with the question of whether mindlessly forcing people to call the operating system GNU/Linux is the right way to spread the message of free software. You have effectively told me that in order to be able to contribute to this list I must conform to your nomenclature. I don't know if this is promoting freedom in any way. Personally I believe not, though that is just an opinion, just like so many others floating around.
I very much doubt if forcing the OS to be called by a specific name is the way to spread the message of any kind of freedom. I have myself seen the effect that this misguided passion for defining the name of the OS has had on the free software community. There have been innumerable cases of GNU/FSF advocates managing to alienate precisely those developers who have significantly contributed to free software, purely because of vocal and occasionally vituperative differences of opinion over the name of the OS.
And do recognise that it's just an opinion: some people claim that Linux is the GNU OS, some claim that it's Linus' OS, and there is no one single point of view on this matter that has `The Truth' written on it for all to see.
Freedom on the other hand is not a matter of opinion. Freedom is absolute, unshakeable and unarguable. Which is why I prefer to stick to the idea of freedom without bothering much about trivial issues related to names and opinions.
The only thing I can expect from this list now is being barred from posting, or being forcibly unsubscribed. If that happens, I would only be able to conclude that debate and questioning of some ideas is banned because of their origins -- a conditional freedom, if such a thing exists, since I know of no other forum where the FSF is willing to discuss and debate its stance on the name Linux vs GNU/Linux.
Regards,
-- Raju
Raju wrote I very much doubt if forcing the OS to be called by a specific name is the way to spread the message of any kind of freedom. I have myself seen the effect that this misguided passion for defining the name of the OS has had on the free software community. There have been innumerable cases of GNU/FSF advocates managing to alienate precisely those developers who have significantly contributed to free software, purely because of vocal and occasionally vituperative differences of opinion over the name of the OS.
I totally agree with Raju, this issue alienates more people, damaging the spread of free(dom) software movement.
Raman.P
________________________________________________________________________ Missed your favourite TV serial last night? Try the new, Yahoo! TV. visit http://in.tv.yahoo.com
to discuss and debate its stance on the name Linux vs GNU/Linux.
We have spent lot of time on this issue. Time to kill the thread.
I would like to point out that we have another list called fsf-discuss for these kinds of topics. This list (fsf-friends) is for constructive action and discussions relating to Free Software Movement in India. Advocating against the GNU policies is not allowed in this list.
Thanks,
List Admin
On Wed, Apr 09, 2003 at 08:57:32AM +0530, Arun M wrote:
Advocating against the GNU policies is not allowed in this list.
Not only on this list, on any other FSF mailing list, it should not be allowed. It is better that such people, who don't believe in FSF ideologies, leave the FSF mailing lists.
Regards
--- "Dileep M. Kumar" dileep@gmx.net wrote: > On Wed, Apr 09, 2003 at 08:57:32AM +0530, Arun M
wrote:
Advocating against the GNU policies is not
allowed in this list.
Not only on this list, on any other FSF mailing list, it should not be allowed. It is better that such people, who don't believe in FSF ideologies, leave the FSF mailing lists.
Regards
.''`. Dileep M. Kumar dileep@kumarayil.net : :' : http://www.kumarayil.net `. `'` `- Debian GNU/Linux - Choice of the Freedom Lovers
I think this list is fsf-FRIENDS. Friends need not be members of Board to toe official line.
Raman.P
________________________________________________________________________ Missed your favourite TV serial last night? Try the new, Yahoo! TV. visit http://in.tv.yahoo.com
It would appear that GNU and FSF have not got their due recognition in the success of Linux. It is not fair. Also, one would think that due recognistion is part of rewards that a contributor to free software movement gets.
It is possible that part of the problem is absence of attractive name to replace Linux. GNU/Linux is too contrived. The name 'Linux' sounds good. Finding an attractive name that recognizes GNU/FSF contribution may be helpful.
- Pankaj Agrawal
On Tue, 8 Apr 2003, Richard Stallman wrote:
It is certainly possible to advocate freedom in software and call the system "Linux". I believe that you do. It is also possible to contribute to development of the GNU system in specific ways while calling the system "Linux". It could well be that you have. But it is impossible to be a true supporter of the GNU Project, or a friend of the FSF, while calling our work by a name that attributes it to someone else. That is treating us very badly.
The basic ethical question of the software field is whether your software is free is; that is the question of how you treat the general public. How you treat the FSF and the GNU Project is a lesser question--but it does matter to us. So even while we recognize that you sincerely support the cause of free software, we cannot accept in a list under FSF auspices your practice of attributing our system to someone else.
Freedom is what all of us are fighting for.. And hence I think that I have the freedom to call it what I want.. And i prefer to call it Linux.. Someone forcing me to call it GNU/Linux would be taking away my freedom.. And thats against the gnu philosophy
Rgds Ashutosh
--- Pankaj Agrawal agrawal@iopb.res.in wrote:
It would appear that GNU and FSF have not gottheir due recognition in the success of Linux. It is not fair. Also, one would think that due recognistion is part of rewards that a contributor to free software movement gets.
It is possible that part of the problem isabsence of attractive name to replace Linux. GNU/Linux is too contrived. The name 'Linux' sounds good. Finding an attractive name that recognizes GNU/FSF contribution may be helpful.
- Pankaj AgrawalOn Tue, 8 Apr 2003, Richard Stallman wrote:
It is certainly possible to advocate freedom in
software and call the
system "Linux". I believe that you do. It is
also possible to
contribute to development of the GNU system in
specific ways while
calling the system "Linux". It could well be that
you have. But it
is impossible to be a true supporter of the GNU
Project, or a friend
of the FSF, while calling our work by a name that
attributes it to
someone else. That is treating us very badly.
The basic ethical question of the software field
is whether your
software is free is; that is the question of how
you treat the general
public. How you treat the FSF and the GNU Project
is a lesser
question--but it does matter to us. So even while
we recognize that
you sincerely support the cause of free software,
we cannot accept in
a list under FSF auspices your practice of
attributing our system to
someone else.
Fsf-friends mailing list Fsf-friends@mm.gnu.org.in http://mm.gnu.org.in/mailman/listinfo/fsf-friends
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more http://tax.yahoo.com
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
"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:
1. 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.
2. 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.
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.
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.
NG> [snip]
Regards,
-- Raju
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
In general, you're free to call the system "Linux" if you want to. You can even do so in public. That's treating us unfairly, but you are free to treat us unfairly if you insist. We won't try to stop you, we will only say it is wrong. See http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#whynotsue.
However, this list isn't a general public forum for people of all views. It was set up by the FSF for discussion among people who support it about how to carry out its work. If you firmly disagree with an important FSF decision, you have a right to your views--but you shouldn't use this list to argue against or defy our policies. We have another forum for that sort of discussion--the newsgroup gnu.misc.discuss. Please take it there, not here.
"RMS" == Richard Stallman rms@gnu.org writes:
RMS> [snip]
RMS> However, this list isn't a general public forum for people of RMS> all views. It was set up by the FSF for discussion among RMS> people who support it about how to carry out its work. If RMS> you firmly disagree with an important FSF decision, you have RMS> a right to your views--but you shouldn't use this list to RMS> argue against or defy our policies. We have another forum RMS> for that sort of discussion--the newsgroup gnu.misc.discuss. RMS> Please take it there, not here.
Richard, I was the one who specifically stated in my original message (Message-ID: 16008.29099.61020.356901@mail.linux-delhi.org):
<quote> If anyone wants to tell me about the name I use for the operating system, please do so in private mail </quote>
I did NOT use the term Linux in that message. I did NOT question any policies in that message. Anyone who wanted to discuss my usage of a term could have safely sent me a private message and spared the list this whole pointless thread.
By electing to make a response to that quote on this list you automatically extended the mandate of the list to include policy discussions.
</nitpick>
Regards,
-- Raju
You quoted yourself as saying
<quote> If anyone wants to tell me about the name I use for the operating system, please do so in private mail </quote>
but you quoted yourself out of context. Here's the entire sentence from your previous message:
If anyone wants to tell me about the name I use for the operating system, please do so in private mail so I can safely consign your messages to /dev/null.
That wasn't questioning our policies--it was spitting on them. Its attitude towards the FSF was hostile and bullying. That is misuse of a list meant for the FSF's friends.
It is necessary to state this on the list, because silence about the matter could be interpreted as acquiescence.
Please stop misusing this list.
Perhaps we should be devoting more effort to see that the 'corrupt practices' of State Governments are thoroughly exposed.
Awarding huge software contracts to proprietary establishments are akin to killing the poorest sections of the people, a crime no less in its dimension than what is happening at Iraq. If those killed or getting maimed in action there, can take refuge in understanding the issue as a consequence of a direct tangible attack, similar ones that take place in airconditioned parlours here, often go unnoticed, with the effect more devastating.
Our bureaucracy is so happy in leading a 'stable married life' with the proprietary establishments, that 'common people' appear to be 'dirt in the eyeball', something that needs to be wiped out for them to live in 'perfect harmony'.
Earlier it had been GIM (Global Investors Meet), wherein the bureaucracy wanted the natural resources to be awarded in a golden platter to the foreign merceniaries. When there was a public outcry, they got ashamed and planned more seriously, coming out with the latest option, wherein they found out that similar end results could even be achieved without inviting the slightest of public attention.
I wonder what our forefathers, who had striven hard in their lifetime to drive away the greedy and power hungry foreigners, would have had to say, after seeing the latest attempts of the Indian Bureaucracy, who now use all their 'putrid brains' in seeing to it that, the best of resources, human natural or otherwise, are reserved for the same greedy foreigners.
CK Raju
CK Raju writes:
Perhaps we should be devoting more effort to see that the 'corrupt practices' of State Governments are thoroughly exposed.
I agree completely with your views. Its only the corruption that blurs every party's underlying ideologies. Every political party by itself, is beautiful in its own way, its only the change in their track from idealism, owing to the 'dreams of comfort' that corruption offers them, they go out-of-track.
I wonder what our forefathers, who had striven hard in their lifetime to drive away the greedy and power hungry foreigners, would have had to say, after seeing the latest attempts of the Indian Bureaucracy, who now use all their 'putrid brains' in seeing to it that, the best of resources, human natural or otherwise, are reserved for the same greedy foreigners.
We definitely have to act against this. What are we going to do?
-Suraj
On Thu, Apr 10, 2003 at 09:01:21AM +0530, Suraj Kumar wrote:
We definitely have to act against this. What are we going to do?
Any such action against these immoral political people will be a waste of time IMHO. Media (for eg. Surya TV) had clearly protested against govt. policies towards IBM and Microsoft several times. Both ruling and opposition parties have only one motto, their own survival.
Fools are people who vote for these criminals.
Regards
Two developments vis-a-vis Free Software in Kerala:
* TUG India and Technopark sign MoU on TeX training for employment
Technopark, Trivandrum, and TUG India (the Indian TeX Users' Group) signed an MoU on 7th Apri l2003 for a joint programme where the two organizations are to conduct training on Text Processing using the popular Free Software, TeX. TeX, written by Donald Knuth, a Stanford Professor, forms the core of a suite of Free Software for high-end text processing and prepress work.
Further, after the training is completed, the trainees will be assisted in constituting themselves into Virtual Micro-Enterprises (VMEs) for self employment. Other kinds of support (incubation, small-scale venture capital) will also be made available for these VMEs through Technopark's support facilities.
The MoU was signed between Rajiv Vasudevan (outgoing CEO, Technopark), NR Mahalingam (CEO Designate, Technopark) and Satish Babu (Secretary, TUG India).
* Kerala PWD to go for Free Software platform
The Public Works Deparment of the GoK is to adopt GNU/Linux as its platform for its enterprise portal. The portal, funded by the World Bank under the Kerala State Tranportation Project, will use PHP and Oracle on GNU/Linux to provide a variety of services for PWD's internal use.
Satish Babu
-- sb@inapp.com
Earlier reports indicated that the cost of maintaining the administrative machinery of the State (the offices and its staff) came close to Rs 5 billion. What is perplexing is the view taken by the (brainless) bureaucrats, that they are ready with an alternate 'system', wherein even if Rs 5 billion per annum (taking the renewal fees of software licenses into consideration), is given away to proprietary software establishments, the Government can still be run, in a much better way.
Words and ideas fail us in attempting a way out to deal with such a 'corrupt bureaucracy' which is starved of any innovations that can do good to humanity.
If Arundhati Roy lamented that Chief Minister's hands are soaked in blood, perhaps we can all say that his bureaucracy's 'minds and thoughts are full of blood', matching the leader in thought and deed. Dealing with such an evil and vicious hierarchy should be a great challenge, where I fear, even if a thousand Stallmans ever emerged, they would still be beaten and sunk into oblivion.
Someone advised me the other day, that spending time in learning to live with such a condition, would be a much better option, than attempting to challenge or change the views of the 'bureaucracy'. It is the 'rottest', Kerala has ever seen or witnessed, a 'burden' for the toiling lot, and a 'shame' for the millions who still aspires to see a prosperous State.
CK Raju
On Tue, Apr 08, 2003 at 01:03:30PM +0530, Nagarjuna G. wrote:
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."]
Quoting Raju's mail at LIH :
On Wed, Oct 09, 2002 at 10:43:10AM +0530, Raju Mathur wrote:
May we just have a separate thread on the Linux vs GNU/Linux topic instead of raising it each and every time someone uses the term Linux on the list? Please take it to LIG.
Dileep> No Raju, we have to educate the people why we should call Dileep> the OS GNU/Linux. I think LIH is the right place since Dileep> many people on LIH may not read LIG. I request all Dileep> members to read http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html
That is a very narrow view: you are saying that some subset of people prefer to call the OS GNU/Linux and are bent on enforcing the use of that name in every context. No one has to educate anyone else on anything. No one was handed a God-given right to educate the rest of the world. Some people prefer to call the OS Linux and some to call it GNU/Linux. I do not take exception to your calling the OS GNU/Linux; please give me and the rest of the list members the equivalent freedom to call it Linux and let the matter drop.
I could come out with dozens of arguments why the OS should NOT be called GNU/Linux, but I don't think that's important here. What IS important is the freedom of choice that each list member has to make up his or her own mind.
If your objective in being on the list is promoting the name GNU/Linux, I suggest you are in the wrong place. This is not the gnu-india-help mailing list. Nor is it the fsf-india-help mailing list or the gnu-linux-india-help mailing list. This is the linux-india-help mailing list, and it's here to help people with using Linux, irrespective of what they choose to call it.
Dileep> At least we don't receive mails like "I have installed Dileep> Linux 8.0 on my box"
No one in the world with half a clue would claim that Linux 8.0 exists. On the other hand, many clueful people (me included) do claim that an OS called Linux exists, and it does not need to be renamed at the whim of a handful of people. If you don't agree, point it out to me in private e-mail, which I will feel free to read or ignore. Please don't clutter up the list with your terminology issues.
Regards,
-- Raju
PS: There are such clueless people in LIH who say "Linux 8.0" for some distros ver 8.0
I could come out with dozens of arguments why the OS should NOT be called GNU/Linux,
Is it?
but I don't think that's important here.
It is important here. Let's share your knowledge and hear about your arguments. I think they can be interesting.
What IS important is the freedom of choice that each list member has to make
up his or her own mind.
Arko
It is generally a bad idea for a major leader to respond to a rant like this. Such a response just lends more importance to the rant.
However, it can't hurt for other people to try to write responses. If you want to do that, here are a few tips:
* Don't organize the response as a series of quotations and comments. Instead, write a single unified article. Quote from the other article only when it serves your purpose.
* Don't try to argue with every little point. Pick two or three important points and write about them.
* Attack the position stated in the article, not the writer.
-
Arko Provo Mukherjee -
Arun M -
Ashutosh Naik -
CK Raju -
Dileep M. Kumar -
Frederick Noronha (FN) -
Nagarjuna G. -
Pankaj Agrawal -
Raj Mathur -
Raman.P -
Richard Stallman -
Satish Babu -
Suraj Kumar