On Tuesday 10 October 2006 16:19, Nagarjuna G. wrote:
GNU community did untiringly requested all other licenses to make them compatible with GPL, or dual license them, in the interest of user's freedom. Lot of projects do this, e.g. openoffice.org, Perl. Several projects' licenses have been modified, and became compatible with GPL, eg. ZPL, PPL, APL. But, it is unfortunate that people read this interest as FSF's interest, as if FSF's interest is not in their interest.
Tell me something. Some people who are 'fans' of GNU, go to such lengths as to call all the software that's been licensed under the GPL, GNU software. Now if I write some software and use GPL for it, I'd most certainly not be willing to accredit it to GNU. Why should I? Like Linux said, "Authors matter." By using the term GNU/Linux, it seems as though Linux is just a part of the GNU project. It is not. Just because someone uses your tools to build their own software does not mean that you own that software. If you have such issues, don't let people use the tools. But again, that goes against freedom, doesn't it?
What I hate about you FSF people is that you try and steal credit. You just said the same thing again... Use GNU in the name? WHY? Make up a name that highlights freedom, _very very clearly_.
Oh and mind you, you say GNU/Linux not GNU & Linux. The only place where I've seen that second term used is on those stickers:
"GNU + Linux, the dynamic duo".
I think that's fair. Clearly states that Linux is a separate project. GNU/Linux does not do that.
But, why not work in favor of FSF's interest, if FSF's agenda is to protect your and my freedom. When we are requesting people to adopt GPLv3, it is not to snatch anything from from you, but to prevent it from getting snatched.
Highlight "request". I agree with Linus. If the kernel developers think that GPL 3 is no good for the kernel, so be it. Let it be under GPL 2. Why create an issue? Highlight "request".
Nagarjuna