Well why not "Linux/GNU" instead of "GNU/Linux"? Is it some age factor? :)

All right, if you use Hurd then probably only GNU or Hurd/GNU! To be clear, show me one machine that runs vanilla "GNU". Amusing right - you might think I am a novice who does not know why one needs a kernel! If _you_ do understand the need for a kernel then why emphasize that GNU is an "Operating System" instead of claiming it to be what it actually is - a wonderful "toolchain".

If it is the concept of userland / toolchain / original credit then let it be "Linux/GNU". The Linux kernel, and probably even the BSD kernels, have had a major role to play in making the "GNU" userland available to non- techie users - lets say non computer scientists. So ultimately what FSF is trying to emphasize is probably that even though your machines' resources are being handled by Linux or some other kernel, it is actually the GNU tool chain that the user is using right from the level of the shell (GNU bash). Well then GNU is indeed dependent on Linux, just as the latter is dependent on it. Lets call a chair a chair and a table a table.

Now, if you are even slightly convinced read on, or else send in a deluge of bandwidth blocking replies which ultimately serve no purpose towards user empowerment, without reading any further.

Lets get things clear and straight - I am one of the greatest fans of RMS. Being a compilers enthusiast myself RMS is like a God considering his contributions begining with Bison and the GPL philosophy. Yes the GPL philosophy and just the license. And that philosophy is "freedom".

Then why does GPL tend to restrict it? Why are non-English versions of GPL not officially available? (correct me if this is novice Q) Why does GPL not address the issues regarding localisation? Why does GPL take away ones rights to actually write prorietary code derived from it? (Forgive me if I have touched on a painful nerve) There are numerous commercial software vendors who use GNU software in their commercial stuff. For instance HP- UX. All of us who have used it know the extent to which GNU is a part of HP-UX. It suits HP's model. They are a hardware vendor, and make money from hardware more than they do from software. However, think of a small time developer. An individual who has his aspiations, dreams, wishes, and a word in his heart which reads like "freedom". If he were to develop a very niche piece of software, he would be forced to make public his source code because he cannot use commercial tool-chain, and is therefore left with GNU, which implies his code falls under the GPL license. Now whose freedom are we talking about??? The big companies who will not waste any time in consuming his code into their commercial software. (Ah well - I have heard that "joke" about every software gets its economic worth! It happens in a developed nation but not where people cut short a day's meal to one, or maybe fast, to pay their computer institute fees.)

Please! Lets talk freedom - freedom as in free, lest freedom becomes the next f-word! Look at the 95% of our population to whom all of this discussion just does not make any sense. No not because it is not relevant, but because it is in English! Just as a piece of _information_, the Indian copyright laws give the copyright to the translator if the original author did not publish the Indian language version of her work. The time probably is not far when this 95% super-majority will get tired of our useless musings and revolt, and convert the existing GNU source code to Indic programming languages, and yes get the copyright. Get it!!!!!! Still not. Come on get down to producing some real work now. Probably instead of keying in useless comments and counter comments, concentrate on keying in at least a few lines of code. You will certainly be helping FSF a lot more that way. And indeed if you also do something for the 95% (which many of you involved in Indic localisation are actually doing), then trust me you will also have done a lot of good towards "Freedom".

Regards, Abhishek