[gentoo-dev] License criteria for Gentoo

[gentoo-dev] License criteria for Gentoo

[Richard Stallman]

In the Gentoo social contract, I read:

    Gentoo Linux is and will remain Free Software 

    We will release our contributions to Gentoo Linux as free software,
    under the GNU General Public License version 2 (or later, at our
    discretion.) Any external contributions to Gentoo Linux (in the form
    of freely-distributable sources or binaries) may be incorporated into
    Gentoo Linux provided that we are legally entitled to do so. However,
    Gentoo Linux will never depend upon a piece of software unless it
    conforms to the GNU General Public License, GNU "Lesser" Public
    License or some other license approved by the Open Source Initiative
    (OSI.)

That criterion is not quite enough to achieve the stated goal, because
Licenses approved by the OSI are not necessarily Free Software
licenses.  As a result, this criterion allows Gentoo to include, and
even depend on, programs that are not free software.  (See
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/apsl.html for an example.)

Would you please consider changing your criterion to refer to both the
OSI and the FSF, so that licenses must qualify as both free software
and open source?

(If you would call the system Gentoo GNU/Linux, that would help us
also.  See http://www.gnu.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html.)

Re: [gentoo-dev] License criteria for Gentoo

[Mikko Moilanen]

On Sun, 22 Sep 2002 11:55:13 -0400
Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> wrote:

> In the Gentoo social contract, I read:
> 
>     Gentoo Linux is and will remain Free Software 

Yes, correct. Gentoo is Free Software. No part of it is non-free. Saying
so I mean standard installation after "emerge system". Then one can, if
one so decides install non-free software, just as in Debian for example.

>     We will release our contributions to Gentoo Linux as free
>     software, under the GNU General Public License version 2 (or
>     later, at our discretion.) Any external contributions to Gentoo
>     Linux (in the form of freely-distributable sources or binaries)
>     may be incorporated into Gentoo Linux provided that we are legally
>     entitled to do so. However, Gentoo Linux will never depend upon a
>     piece of software unless it conforms to the GNU General Public
>     License, GNU "Lesser" Public License or some other license
>     approved by the Open Source Initiative(OSI.)
> 
> That criterion is not quite enough to achieve the stated goal, 

What goal, do you mean FSF:s goal. Yes, I agree. But what stands in
Gentoos social contrach stands there as is and it stands honestly so.

"Gentoo Linux will never depend.." Gentoo Linux will never depend on
non-free software. Never. Thats enough. Currently there is software that
is non-free and it will take very long time, perhaps never, to achieve
an situation where free software is better in detail than non-free in
games.  

> because
> Licenses approved by the OSI are not necessarily Free Software
> licenses.  As a result, this criterion allows Gentoo to include, and
> even depend on, programs that are not free software.  (See
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/apsl.html for an example.)

Does allow not. It will allow include, but NOT depend, and it will NOT
allow Gentoo to depend on software what is NOT freely distributable. It
allows Gentoo to depend only GPL licensed software, or _so it should
be_.

> Would you please consider changing your criterion to refer to both the
> OSI and the FSF, so that licenses must qualify as both free software
> and open source?

Does it do so, does it, or do you mean some hyperlinks?

> (If you would call the system Gentoo GNU/Linux, that would help us
> also.  See http://www.gnu.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html.)

Yes, I am very big fan of you hmm.. or perhaps you are even an idol to
me, (I know that I dont have resources like you) and I agree on that
one. Gentoo is not so commercial distribution, (and hopefully never will
be) so Gentoos name should be Gentoo GNU/Linux as should all
distributions name themselves. Hey whats wrong?? Not every distribution
should be called that way. Only distributions that are per default
completely free as GPL licence says. It is an honor to name distribution
as GNU/Linux.

Thankyou for you Richard Stallman. Thankyou for pointing very bad
mistake in Gentoos social contract. I value freedom above all else.
Without you there would be nothing like GNU/Linux. You are very great
man. Please keep defending Free Software.

Hopefully gentoo-dev will correct that very bad mistake in social
contracht. I could, but I would not use µ$ if I would want support for
hardware or games. There is commercial non-free alternatives, but there
is now only one significant free alternative in which One can rely on.
It is not enough. It would be good if Gentoo would be also alternative
you can count on.

This is now catastrophic for me. Long going dream cutting apart. But coming
back to reality is _good_. *NO BACKDOORS* please.. you gentoo-dev.
-- 

Mikko

Re: [gentoo-dev] License criteria for Gentoo

[Peter Ruskin]

On Sunday 22 Sep 2002 22:34, Mikko Moilanen wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Sep 2002 11:55:13 -0400
>
> This is now catastrophic for me. Long going dream cutting apart. But
> coming back to reality is _good_. *NO BACKDOORS* please.. you
> gentoo-dev.

I'll have some of what you're smoking
-- 
Gentoo Linux (portage-2.0.36
portage-2.0.37).  KDE: 3.0.3  Qt: 3.0.5
AMD Athlon(tm) XP 1600+ 512MB.	Kernel: 2.4.19-win4lin.	GCC 3.2
Linux user #275590 (http://counter.li.org/).  up 9:57.
#=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=#

Re: [gentoo-dev] License criteria for Gentoo

[Mikko Moilanen]

On Sun, 22 Sep 2002 22:51:51 +0100
Peter Ruskin <aoyu93@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:

> On Sunday 22 Sep 2002 22:34, Mikko Moilanen wrote:
> > On Sun, 22 Sep 2002 11:55:13 -0400
> >
> > This is now catastrophic for me. Long going dream cutting apart. But
> > coming back to reality is _good_. *NO BACKDOORS* please.. you
> > gentoo-dev.
> 
> I'll have some of what you're smoking

Maybe some clarification is needed here.

Long going dream was faith that Gentoo is best in all ways. Now it's gone. By saying "no backdoors" I mean that there currently is backdoor for Gentoo-dev or Gentoo inc.? Accepting "some other" license in which Gentoo could depend on, there is backdoor for an situation like:

	"Hey! we got an OS here. Lets start making some serious profit now."

And then uuups, you have to pay if you want emerge something (eg. RedHat and update). How can this happen? I dont know. All I know that everything is possible when pictures of money are mirroring from eyes of one. There is too big possibility for this kind of situation if there is things like "some other" license. Also there is room for too closed development if Gentoo can depend on some opensource but not freely modified code. There only will be too much things that was my main reason to swich OS. Fu?k, I am way too paranoid.

If my posts are beginning to annoy too much folk there, just email, and I'll stop this. I dont wanna disturb. I just want OS for my life. I hope it will be Gentoo.
-- 

Mikko

Re: [gentoo-dev] License criteria for Gentoo

[Evan Read]

On Mon, 23 Sep 2002 01:55, Richard Stallman wrote:
> In the Gentoo social contract, I read:
>
>     Gentoo Linux is and will remain Free Software
>
>     We will release our contributions to Gentoo Linux as free software,
>     under the GNU General Public License version 2 (or later, at our
>     discretion.) Any external contributions to Gentoo Linux (in the form
>     of freely-distributable sources or binaries) may be incorporated into
>     Gentoo Linux provided that we are legally entitled to do so. However,
>     Gentoo Linux will never depend upon a piece of software unless it
>     conforms to the GNU General Public License, GNU "Lesser" Public
>     License or some other license approved by the Open Source Initiative
>     (OSI.)
>
> That criterion is not quite enough to achieve the stated goal, because
> Licenses approved by the OSI are not necessarily Free Software
> licenses.  As a result, this criterion allows Gentoo to include, and
> even depend on, programs that are not free software.  (See
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/apsl.html for an example.)

Hmm.  I had never thought of this before.  Since the GPL came from the FSF 
guys, it does make sense to mention them in greater detail.  As Richard has 
said, we ARE talking about Free Software in Gentoo, not just Open Source.

I guess this kind of thing is Daniel's call (or one of a few others).  Have 
they anything to say about this?

> Would you please consider changing your criterion to refer to both the
> OSI and the FSF, so that licenses must qualify as both free software
> and open source?

I think this is fair, provided the distribution is commited to the goals the 
FSF talks about.  I think it is.

> (If you would call the system Gentoo GNU/Linux, that would help us
> also.  See http://www.gnu.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html.)

Heh.  I noticed this has a more minor mention here. I really don't have a 
problem with this at all because, as the other guy wrote, we are not 
commercial.  Our users aren't going to suddenly go "huh?".

But I have not been through everything fully.  I think it appropriate to 
discuss this now.

Does that fact that Gentoo has become a blip on RMS's radar mean it is finally 
"arriving"? ;)  Hehe.

Evan.

Re: [gentoo-dev] License criteria for Gentoo

[Christian Axelsson]

--------------------
On Sun, 22 Sep 2002 11:55:13 -0400
Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> wrote:

<snip>
 That criterion is not quite enough to achieve the stated goal, because
 Licenses approved by the OSI are not necessarily Free Software
 licenses.  As a result, this criterion allows Gentoo to include, and
 even depend on, programs that are not free software.  (See
 http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/apsl.html for an example.)
</snip>

I agree on that
 
<snip>
 Would you please consider changing your criterion to refer to both the
 OSI and the FSF, so that licenses must qualify as both free software
 and open source?
</snip>

It's a small change that might satisfy not just you but many others active in the community. 
If I can vote I vote yes for that change to happend.

<snip> 
 (If you would call the system Gentoo GNU/Linux, that would help us
 also.  See http://www.gnu.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html.)
</snip>

This isn't only more correct, it actually looks better IMHO :)


My 10 cents of worth...

--
Christian Axelsson
smiler@lanil.mine.nu

Re: [gentoo-dev] License criteria for Gentoo

[mike]

> That criterion is not quite enough to achieve the stated goal, because
> Licenses approved by the OSI are not necessarily Free Software
> licenses.  As a result, this criterion allows Gentoo to include, and
> even depend on, programs that are not free software.  (See
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/apsl.html for an example.)

the definition of 'depending on' was stated almost perfectly imho by
Mikko.  by 'almost' i mean `emerge system` is affected by what the
user puts into their USE variable.  a better list of packages that Gentoo
will 'depend' on can be found in your profile.  if you run this:
`grep '^*' /etc/make.profile/packages` you will see exactly what Gentoo
'depends' on.  now, this list contains packages that are both open source
and free.  that means everything Gentoo 'depends' on is open source and
free software.

as for 'allowing Gentoo to include programs that are not free software',
then thats just tooooooooooo freakin bad imo.  i want to play UT2003,
you going to tell me i cant ?  (insert other packages that fall under this
criteria).

> Would you please consider changing your criterion to refer to both the
> OSI and the FSF, so that licenses must qualify as both free software
> and open source?

maybe for the section that Gentoo wont depend on, but if you're want to
say Gentoo will never include software under such strict requirements,
then piss off ;)

> (If you would call the system Gentoo GNU/Linux, that would help us
> also.  See http://www.gnu.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html.)

while i completely agree with software being open and free, i hate to see
this kind of name change.  it just rubs me the wrong way, and i know i'll
never ever (reduce for emphasis ;]) use the phrase 'GNU/Linux' unless
i'm quoting somebody
-mike

Re: [gentoo-dev] License criteria for Gentoo

[Mark Bainter]

mike [vapier@netzero.com] wrote:
[snip]
> as for 'allowing Gentoo to include programs that are not free software',
> then thats just tooooooooooo freakin bad imo.  i want to play UT2003,
> you going to tell me i cant ?  (insert other packages that fall under this
> criteria).
> 
> > Would you please consider changing your criterion to refer to both the
> > OSI and the FSF, so that licenses must qualify as both free software
> > and open source?
> 
> maybe for the section that Gentoo wont depend on, but if you're want to
> say Gentoo will never include software under such strict requirements,
> then piss off ;)

Hrm.  I don't think this sort of vitriol is going to help.  Also, you
would do well not to read more into what Stallman says than there is.

I don't really think we should mischaracterize what Stallman is bringing 
up here.  He hasn't asked anyone to ban all non-free software from the 
distribution.  All he's saying is, with our definition it's possible for
software that is considered "open source" but not "free" (as defined
by RMS) to be depended on.  He'd rather see us require only "free"
software be depended on.  (We're only talking about the base system
here, not the entire distribution)

The issue at hand is one of the terms we use.  Do we mean Open Source,
or do we mean "free software" (as defined by RMS).   Personally, I'm
fine with just saying that we will never depend on anything that's not
open source, but saying we'll only depend on free software would be 
fine too considering that we /are/ only talking about the base system.

Either way, I think it would probably behoove us to better define what
we are saying.  If we end up going the "Free Software" route, then we
should probably make sure we refer to the FSF as well as OSI.   If we
don't handle it, it's only going to keep cropping up.

> > (If you would call the system Gentoo GNU/Linux, that would help us
> > also.  See http://www.gnu.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html.)

For the record, if my vote counts for anything, I'm still against this.
-- 

Re: [gentoo-dev] License criteria for Gentoo

[Thomas M. Beaudry]

I wasn't going to jump into this mess but...

> I don't really think we should mischaracterize what Stallman is bringing 
> up here.  He hasn't asked anyone to ban all non-free software from the 
> distribution.  All he's saying is, with our definition it's possible for
> software that is considered "open source" but not "free" (as defined
> by RMS) to be depended on.  He'd rather see us require only "free"
> software be depended on.  (We're only talking about the base system
> here, not the entire distribution)
> 
> The issue at hand is one of the terms we use.  Do we mean Open Source,
> or do we mean "free software" (as defined by RMS).   Personally, I'm
> fine with just saying that we will never depend on anything that's not
> open source, but saying we'll only depend on free software would be 
> fine too considering that we /are/ only talking about the base system.
> 
> Either way, I think it would probably behoove us to better define what
> we are saying.  If we end up going the "Free Software" route, then we
> should probably make sure we refer to the FSF as well as OSI.   If we
> don't handle it, it's only going to keep cropping up.

I don't like adding reference to the FSF for the same reason RMS didn't
like the first BSD license, there's the potential for the need to add
more and more such references.  You could conceivably end up with a page
full of such references.

Furthermore, I do not see where RMS sees the potential for non-free
software under one of the OSI approved licenses.  I just checked the
web page of approval criteria to verify I remembered correctly and
the first criteria is that the license allows free unrestricted
distribution of the software.  How much more free can you get than
that?

>>>(If you would call the system Gentoo GNU/Linux, that would help us
>>>also.  See http://www.gnu.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html.)
>>
> 
> For the record, if my vote counts for anything, I'm still against this.

I vote against it as well.  The FSF did get the ball rolling with the
GNU license and some software but the vast majority of the GNU licensed
software in a distribution has nothing to do with the FSF other than
using their license.  So this argument turns into acknowledging a
license in the name of the distribution.  If we add acknowledgment of
the GNU license in the name, then shouldn't we do the same for all the
other licenses that are used?  That could grow to be a mighty long
name.  I say stick with tradition and just call it Linux.

-- 
Thomas M. Beaudry
k8la / ys1ztm

Re: [gentoo-dev] License criteria for Gentoo

[Moritz Schulte]

"Thomas M. Beaudry" <k8la@myrealbox.com> writes:

> I just checked the web page of approval criteria to verify I
> remembered correctly and the first criteria is that the license
> allows free unrestricted distribution of the software.  How much
> more free can you get than that?

Free distribution of software is one thing.  Another thing for example
is the freedom to modify the software and also to distribute modified
versions of that software.

> If we add acknowledgment of the GNU license in the name, then
> shouldn't we do the same for all the other licenses that are used?

Uhm, the point is not to include "GNU" in the name, because there's a
"GNU License" and software included in Gentoo is licensed under that
license.  Anyone can use the GNU Licenses.  The point is not the
license, but the GNU software - all the GNU packages, which make the
Gentoo system usable.

> I say stick with tradition and just call it Linux.

... and wake the impression that "Linux" is a great and very complete
operating system with it's own C library, development tools, shell
tools, file management tools, etc.

But, when the majority of the Gentoo team thinks it should be "Gentoo
Linux" - that's the decision.  I can only say why I think that
GNU/Linux makes more sense.

Thanks.
		moritz
-- 
moritz@duesseldorf.ccc.de - http://duesseldorf.ccc.de/~moritz/
GPG fingerprint = 3A14 3923 15BE FD57 FC06  B501 0841 2D7B 6F98 4199

Re: [gentoo-dev] License criteria for Gentoo

[Mark Bainter]

Thomas M. Beaudry [k8la@myrealbox.com] wrote:
> I wasn't going to jump into this mess but...

I know the feeling.  Unfortunately, left unchecked these things
rarely go well.

> I don't like adding reference to the FSF for the same reason RMS didn't
> like the first BSD license, there's the potential for the need to add
> more and more such references.  You could conceivably end up with a page
> full of such references.

Well, we aren't talking about acknowledging every /license/ here, only
the two major organizations promotiong free/open software.  I don't know
that we'll really have that many.

> Furthermore, I do not see where RMS sees the potential for non-free
> software under one of the OSI approved licenses.  I just checked the
> web page of approval criteria to verify I remembered correctly and
> the first criteria is that the license allows free unrestricted
> distribution of the software.  How much more free can you get than
> that?

For this you have to understand that we aren't talking about free
in a generic sense of the word.  We're talking about "Free" as 
defined by RMS.  Which basically means protected by the GPL, or a
license 100% compatible with it.  In other words, while BSD licensed
software might be considered free by most of us, it's really just
"open source", and doesn't meet RMS's criteria for "Free Software".
It's all a matter of defining terms.

-- 

Re: [gentoo-dev] License criteria for Gentoo

[Christophe Vanfleteren]

On Tuesday 24 September 2002 14:24, Mark Bainter wrote:
> Thomas M. Beaudry [k8la@myrealbox.com] wrote:
> > I wasn't going to jump into this mess but...
>
> I know the feeling.  Unfortunately, left unchecked these things
> rarely go well.
>
> > I don't like adding reference to the FSF for the same reason RMS didn't
> > like the first BSD license, there's the potential for the need to add
> > more and more such references.  You could conceivably end up with a page
> > full of such references.
>
> Well, we aren't talking about acknowledging every /license/ here, only
> the two major organizations promotiong free/open software.  I don't know
> that we'll really have that many.
>
> > Furthermore, I do not see where RMS sees the potential for non-free
> > software under one of the OSI approved licenses.  I just checked the
> > web page of approval criteria to verify I remembered correctly and
> > the first criteria is that the license allows free unrestricted
> > distribution of the software.  How much more free can you get than
> > that?
>
> For this you have to understand that we aren't talking about free
> in a generic sense of the word.  We're talking about "Free" as
> defined by RMS.  Which basically means protected by the GPL, or a
> license 100% compatible with it.  In other words, while BSD licensed
> software might be considered free by most of us, it's really just
> "open source", and doesn't meet RMS's criteria for "Free Software".
> It's all a matter of defining terms.

Small correction:

The BSD licence IS FREE, unless you were referring to the original licence 
with the advertising clause in it.
See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html

Christophe Vanfleteren

Re: [gentoo-dev] License criteria for Gentoo

[Mark Bainter]

Christophe Vanfleteren [gentoo@pandora.be] wrote:
> Small correction:
> 
> The BSD licence IS FREE, unless you were referring to the original licence 
> with the advertising clause in it.
> See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html

Hrm, it was my understanding that it wasn't considered "FREE" because
it allowed a third party to use the code without releasing the source.
Hence my point.

-- 

Re: [gentoo-dev] License criteria for Gentoo

[Moritz Schulte]

Mark Bainter <mark-gt@cymry.org> writes:

> Hrm, it was my understanding that it wasn't considered "FREE"
> because it allowed a third party to use the code without releasing
> the source.

This just means that it is not a copyleft license.  Copyleft is not a
requirement for a Free Software license.

		moritz
-- 
moritz@duesseldorf.ccc.de - http://duesseldorf.ccc.de/~moritz/
GPG fingerprint = 3A14 3923 15BE FD57 FC06  B501 0841 2D7B 6F98 4199

Re: [gentoo-dev] License criteria for Gentoo

[Greg Corcoran]

On Sun, 2002-09-22 at 08:55, Richard Stallman wrote:
> (If you would call the system Gentoo GNU/Linux, that would help us
> also.  See http://www.gnu.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html.)

The naming issue can get very politcal and is wet cement that hardens
for the future. Perhaps an idea would be to call it simply:

Gentoo OS

The kernel currently can be configured only for Linux but in the future
we may support other kernels that the community has interest in.

When a Gentoo System finishes booting the kernel a copyright line comes
up. It currently says something like the following if I remember
correctly:

Gentoo Linux; http://www.gentoo.org
Copyright 2001-2002 Gentoo Technologies, Inc. Distributed under GPL.

I think this is ambigous since GTI doesn't hold the copyright for many of the components. I think it needs to be more fine grained.

Perhaps it should read something like the following:

Gentoo OS (Linux Kernel) http://www.gentoo.org
Made with GNU Tools and Components
Portage (c) 2001-2002 Gentoo Technologies, Inc. Distributed under GPL

I'm not sure who utlimately decides issues like this where its very
difficult to keep all parties happy. Perhaps the Gentoo Technologies,
Inc. board of directors should decide. I'm not sure who that is though
and who the stake holders are.

The website could credit significant contributing projects to give credit where credit is due. Certainly Python is a very important part of Gentoo and that's not GNU.

Greg

Re: [gentoo-dev] License criteria for Gentoo

[Mark Guertin]

On Sunday 22 September 2002 23:20, Greg Corcoran wrote:
> On Sun, 2002-09-22 at 08:55, Richard Stallman wrote:
> > (If you would call the system Gentoo GNU/Linux, that would help us
> > also.  See http://www.gnu.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html.)
>
> The naming issue can get very politcal and is wet cement that hardens
> for the future. Perhaps an idea would be to call it simply:
>
> Gentoo OS

Why change it at all?  Releasing under GPL != GNU, some GNU tools are used in 
the making of Gentoo and all associated tools are distributed according to 
their guidelines.

Mark

P.S. Why oh why does rms take this personal objective to try and make the 
world conform to his views by adding GNU?  note to rms:  go bug Apple if you 
have to be on a mission, they use GNU tools and absolutely do NOT follow the 
guidelines (has anyone tried to get the src code to the bastardized gcc they 
distribute?  I have and it's not 'freely available')

Re: [gentoo-dev] License criteria for Gentoo

[Evan Read]

On Sun, Sep 22, 2002 at 09:20:21PM -0700, Greg Corcoran wrote:
> On Sun, 2002-09-22 at 08:55, Richard Stallman wrote:
> > (If you would call the system Gentoo GNU/Linux, that would help us
> > also.  See http://www.gnu.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html.)
 
<snip>

> The kernel currently can be configured only for Linux but in the future
> we may support other kernels that the community has interest in.

Sounds kinda good.  Proves how modular Gentoo is. Of course I also wouldn't want the project 
to lose focus.  I like the BSDs precisely because of how tied together everything is.

Ie, things are "ported" to OpenBSD. In some cases (say one-time passwords with S/KEY), they 
are implimented completely differently to take advantage of kernel specific options.

If Gentoo became Gentoo OS, then I would expect it to become more integrated.  Not longer 
just a "distro".

I think the Linux kernel is a cool kernel to integrate into because of the work that is 
going into it.  
 
> When a Gentoo System finishes booting the kernel a copyright line comes
> up. It currently says something like the following if I remember
> correctly:
> 

<snip>
 
> Gentoo OS (Linux Kernel) http://www.gentoo.org
> Made with GNU Tools and Components
> Portage (c) 2001-2002 Gentoo Technologies, Inc. Distributed under GPL

Isn't the copyright completely irrelavent because the GPL is indeed "copyleft"?

I think if you begin listing all the contributions from all over the place, you will have a 
crowded screen! ;)  I know glibc is major and gcc is major, but heaps of stuff is from other 
places (Python being major and not gnu!).


> I'm not sure who utlimately decides issues like this where its very
> difficult to keep all parties happy. Perhaps the Gentoo Technologies,
> Inc. board of directors should decide. I'm not sure who that is though
> and who the stake holders are.

Well, the users aren't we? Until there is a for sale product that is non-GPL'd in someway, 
the users are the stakeholders. I think the developers should canvas our opinions on these 
issues (or we should give them).

I am not a Gentoo developer, BTW ;)
 
> The website could credit significant contributing projects to give credit where credit is
due. Certainly Python is a very important part of Gentoo and that's not GNU. 

Agreed.  Make that part of the boot screen.  A link to credits.

Evan




-- 
Evan Read
http://eread.freeshell.org

"The future comes 60 minutes an hour no matter who you are or what you 
do." 
	The Screwtape Letters - C.S. Lewis

Re: [gentoo-dev] License criteria for Gentoo

[Thomas M. Beaudry]

> Gentoo OS
> 
> The kernel currently can be configured only for Linux but in the future
> we may support other kernels that the community has interest in.

Actually an argument for leaving the name as-is.  Then you have Gentoo
Linux, Gentoo Hurd, etc. depending on the kernel that you are booting.

> When a Gentoo System finishes booting the kernel a copyright line comes
> up. It currently says something like the following if I remember
> correctly:
> 
> Gentoo Linux; http://www.gentoo.org
> Copyright 2001-2002 Gentoo Technologies, Inc. Distributed under GPL.
> 
> I think this is ambigous since GTI doesn't hold the copyright for many
 > of the components. I think it needs to be more fine grained.

Nothing wrong with this, you can copyright a unique collection without
violating the copyrights of the individual components.  Think of a book
of short stories.  Each of the stories is copyrighted and the book has
copyrighted that selection and order of short stories.

-- 
Thomas M. Beaudry
k8la / ys1ztm

Re: [gentoo-dev] License criteria for Gentoo

[Moritz Schulte]

"Thomas M. Beaudry" <k8la@myrealbox.com> writes:

> Actually an argument for leaving the name as-is.  Then you have
> Gentoo Linux, Gentoo Hurd, etc. depending on the kernel that you are
> booting.

Well, no.  "Gentoo Hurd" would not be correct - for the same reason
"Gentoo Linux" is not considered correct.  Either it should be "Gentoo
GNU/Hurd" - or simply "Gentoo GNU" - since the Hurd is the official
GNU core and therefore "the GNU system" implies "Hurd based".  It's
the same with Debian; we have Debian GNU/Linux and Debian GNU/Hurd.

Btw: the Hurd is not a kernel (that's why I said "core", actually we
don't have a single word to describe what the Hurd is).  The Hurd
consists entirely of user space components, which run on top of a
Microkernel (Mach, at the moment, but the port to the
second-generation microkernel L4 is underway) to provide the system
services one would expect from a Unix like system (file systems,
networking stacks, processes, user/group IDs, authentication, etc.).

Thanks.
		moritz
-- 
moritz@duesseldorf.ccc.de - http://duesseldorf.ccc.de/~moritz/
GPG fingerprint = 3A14 3923 15BE FD57 FC06  B501 0841 2D7B 6F98 4199

Re: [gentoo-dev] License criteria for Gentoo

[Kevyn Shortell]

I don't personally think GNU/Linux is correct. I think that's a bastardization 
of the name, and it's doing a disservice to everything GNU stood for.
It takes away from the efforts of those who've worked there, and 
focuses everything on RMS's attempt to get recognition for GNU.
Note that he doesn't want you to change the name to Linux/GNU. He
wants top billing for GNU, he wants GNU/Linux, So why is GNU
more important than Linux? 

So while we're at it, We then should be accurate and then call it
GNU/KDE/SUN/IBM/QT/Python/Drobbins/partsrippedfrombsd Gentoo Linux.

Seriously, take a look at how people look at GNU, It's a toolset, it's a
compiler, it's a source license, but since when did it become a religious
movement, that required people to change their very name, in order
to honor it?

Linux is an operating system, it is a collection of parts. GNU is just
one of the many parts, giving in to changing the name for GNU today
just means 3 months down the road, the next license that comes along
will want the same thing. There is a reason why RedHat, SuSE and
Mandrake basically ignored RMS, It makes NO sense to change
the name, If RMS wants credit, fine add information in the docs, about
how this was made possible by the efforts of the many fine coders at
the FSF and GNU Project. Placating RMS, slights the others who have
done just as much work, to make this distro what it is. Look at it from
a marketing perspective. It's suicide to take a marketable name, and
ruin it by adding GNU in front of it. Brand names are marketable because
they are unique. They are memorable, they have a image associated with
it. GNU/Linux, Just frankly is the worst marketing plan I've ever heard of.
You could sell hair dryers to 60 year old bald men easier than trying to
market ANYTHING called GNU/Gentoo Linux. In regards to Debian
using the GNU tag... Debian was probably hoping to get more publicity
from it, as they were in danger of well, ending up where they are...

I'd rather quit developing, than bow in to political pressure from RMS
or anyone else.  If you resort to begging or coercing people to give you
credit, it creates resentment and bitterness. It's not credit. It's a bribe to
get you to leave them alone.

Kevyn 


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Moritz Schulte" <moritz@duesseldorf.ccc.de>
To: "Thomas M. Beaudry" <k8la@myrealbox.com>
Cc: "Greg Corcoran" <gregc@spidex.com>; <gentoo-dev@gentoo.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 3:49 AM
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] License criteria for Gentoo


> "Thomas M. Beaudry" <k8la@myrealbox.com> writes:
> 
> > Actually an argument for leaving the name as-is.  Then you have
> > Gentoo Linux, Gentoo Hurd, etc. depending on the kernel that you are
> > booting.
> 
> Well, no.  "Gentoo Hurd" would not be correct - for the same reason
> "Gentoo Linux" is not considered correct.  Either it should be "Gentoo
> GNU/Hurd" - or simply "Gentoo GNU" - since the Hurd is the official
> GNU core and therefore "the GNU system" implies "Hurd based".  It's
> the same with Debian; we have Debian GNU/Linux and Debian GNU/Hurd.
> 
> Btw: the Hurd is not a kernel (that's why I said "core", actually we
> don't have a single word to describe what the Hurd is).  The Hurd
> consists entirely of user space components, which run on top of a
> Microkernel (Mach, at the moment, but the port to the
> second-generation microkernel L4 is underway) to provide the system
> services one would expect from a Unix like system (file systems,
> networking stacks, processes, user/group IDs, authentication, etc.).
> 
> Thanks.
> moritz
> -- 
> moritz@duesseldorf.ccc.de - http://duesseldorf.ccc.de/~moritz/
> GPG fingerprint = 3A14 3923 15BE FD57 FC06  B501 0841 2D7B 6F98 4199
> _______________________________________________
> gentoo-dev mailing list
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
> http://lists.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev

RE: [gentoo-dev] License criteria for Gentoo

[Cal Evans]

Personally, I believe his plan is to blackmail all distros into compliance.
If you DON'T change your name, he will post on your mailing list. This will,
in effect, clog it with endless messages arguing this silly point back and
forth until no work can actually get accomplished.

It's a fiendishly simple plan. You've got to admire the man. (No really,
it's in the GPL, you've GOT to admire the man.)

=C=

p.s. for the record, I do admire the contributions that Mr. Stallman has
made to the *nix community.
*
* Cal Evans
* The Virtual CIO
* http://www.calevans.com
*


-----Original Message-----
From: gentoo-dev-admin@gentoo.org [mailto:gentoo-dev-admin@gentoo.org]On
Behalf Of Kevyn Shortell
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 6:37 AM
To: Thomas M. Beaudry; Moritz Schulte
Cc: Greg Corcoran; gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] License criteria for Gentoo


I don't personally think GNU/Linux is correct. I think that's a
bastardization
of the name, and it's doing a disservice to everything GNU stood for.
It takes away from the efforts of those who've worked there, and
focuses everything on RMS's attempt to get recognition for GNU.
Note that he doesn't want you to change the name to Linux/GNU. He
wants top billing for GNU, he wants GNU/Linux, So why is GNU
more important than Linux?
<...SNIP...>

Re: [gentoo-dev] License criteria for Gentoo

[Moritz Schulte]

"Kevyn Shortell" <kevyn@mac.com> writes:

Hello,

let me first clarify this: it is not my intention to nor could I
"force" anyone to use the name GNU/Linux instead of Linux.  But what
we can do of course is discussing this topic.

> I think that's a bastardization of the name, and it's doing a
> disservice to everything GNU stood for.

I don't understand that.  I don't understand in what way mentioning
"GNU" in "GNU/Linux" does damage to what GNU stands for.

> It takes away from the efforts of those who've worked there, and
> focuses everything on RMS's attempt to get recognition for GNU.

Uhm, I also don't understand that.  If I understood you correctly, you
say that calling the system GNU/Linux "takes away from the efforts of
those who've worked there"?  I think, the opposite is the case.  By
not mentioning GNU in the name of the system, we narrow the efforts of
the people working on the GNU packages, which make the system usable.

> Note that he doesn't want you to change the name to Linux/GNU. He
> wants top billing for GNU, he wants GNU/Linux, So why is GNU more
> important than Linux?

Well, of course, Linux and GNU components are the most essential
pieces of the system, but they are essential in a different way.  I
could imagine that the order "GNU/Linux" has historical roots.  The
GNU Project was working on this free, Unix like operating system,
named "GNU".  Many components of GNU were finished, but the Hurd core
was not ready yet.  At that time Linux envolved and it became obvious
that all the GNU components combined with the Linux component can form
a more or less complete operating system.  So the name of system
wouldn't be GNU anymore - but GNU/Linux.

> So while we're at it, We then should be accurate and then call it
> GNU/KDE/SUN/IBM/QT/Python/Drobbins/partsrippedfrombsd Gentoo Linux.

Well.  There is one difference.  If you remove the GNU component of
that system, you are in serious trouble, as you _have_ to replace
that.  Otherwise it wouldn't be fun.  But, if you remove what you call
"KDE/SUN/IBM/QT/Python/Drobbins/partsrippedfrombsd", you would still
have the GNU/Linux system in a working state.

Of course, we can build a system, which has as few GNU components as
possible.  There are alternative libc implementation, there are not
only GNU compilers, the GNU {shell,file,find,etc}utils could be
probably very easily replaced with BSD code or something else.  I
would not call that GNU/Linux then.  But the system we are talking
about contains essential GNU software - without it, the system would
be quiet useless.  It "runs" - I mean, you can also use a nail to put
a hammer into the wall.

> Seriously, take a look at how people look at GNU, It's a toolset,
> it's a compiler, it's a source license, but since when did it become
> a religious movement, that required people to change their very
> name, in order to honor it?

Well, I don't like at GNU like if it would be only a toolset.  Maybe
you should browse around http://www.gnu.org/ to get a better overview
about what GNU is.  Nor is it something religious for me.  And of
course GNU does not require or force any project to change their name.
It's a free decision for those project wether they want to support GNU
or not.

> Linux is an operating system, it is a collection of parts.

I don't want to disagree with the general sentence "Linux is an
operating system" - simply because it is obvious that there are
different definitions of "operating system" (I remember for instance
that Andrew S. Tanenbaum is using the term "operating system" in his
book "Modern Operating Systems" to refer to "kernels").  I can only
say that I don't call Linux an operating system, since I prefer
another definition.

> GNU is just one of the many parts, giving in to changing the name
> for GNU today just means 3 months down the road, the next license
> that comes along will want the same thing.

As I already wrote in a different mail, it's not about licenses, it is
about software components.  And, I have to agree with you - if Gentoo
plans to substitute all these essential GNU components in Gentoo, then
it indeed wouldn't make much sense to change the name to GNU/Linux
now.  But I am not aware of such plans.

> There is a reason why RedHat, SuSE and Mandrake basically ignored
> RMS, It makes NO sense to change the name, If RMS wants credit, fine
> add information in the docs, [...]

Not RMS wants credit, he doesn't ask Gentoo to use the term RMS/Linux.
He wants credit for the GNU Project, which means: many, many other
people.

> It's suicide to take a marketable name, and ruin it by adding GNU in
> front of it.

"ruin it"?

> Brand names are marketable because they are unique. They are
> memorable, they have a image associated with it. GNU/Linux, Just
> frankly is the worst marketing plan I've ever heard of.

Besides the fact that I don't see the point (I don't know much about
marketing) - why is marketing that important for Gentoo?

> Debian was probably hoping to get more publicity from it, as they
> were in danger of well, ending up where they are...

Debian is very different from Gentoo, we know that.  But you make that
sound so negative - just because it is different?  As far as I can
see, Debian is a quite successfull operating system.

> I'd rather quit developing, than bow in to political pressure from
> RMS or anyone else.

Sorry, "pressure"?  I remember RMS's mail to this list and seriously,
I cannot find a single bit of pressure in it regarding the term
GNU/Linux.

Thanks.

		moritz
-- 
moritz@duesseldorf.ccc.de - http://duesseldorf.ccc.de/~moritz/
GPG fingerprint = 3A14 3923 15BE FD57 FC06  B501 0841 2D7B 6F98 4199

Re: [gentoo-dev] License criteria for Gentoo

[Mark Bainter]

Moritz Schulte [moritz@duesseldorf.ccc.de] wrote:
> "Kevyn Shortell" <kevyn@mac.com> writes:
>
> Well, of course, Linux and GNU components are the most essential
> pieces of the system, but they are essential in a different way.  I
> could imagine that the order "GNU/Linux" has historical roots.  The
> GNU Project was working on this free, Unix like operating system,
> named "GNU".  Many components of GNU were finished, but the Hurd core
> was not ready yet.  At that time Linux envolved and it became obvious
> that all the GNU components combined with the Linux component can form
> a more or less complete operating system.  So the name of system
> wouldn't be GNU anymore - but GNU/Linux.
[snip]
> Not RMS wants credit, he doesn't ask Gentoo to use the term RMS/Linux.
> He wants credit for the GNU Project, which means: many, many other
> people.

I think you misunderstand why RMS does this.  I think it really has 
little to do with giving credit for that development to the developers.  
That's already done.  This is about RMS making sure that the GNU 
foundation stays at the front of people's thoughts.  This is about 
RMS's free software crusade, thus, it's entirely about marketing.  
He needs GNU to continue to be a name in common usage, and to keep 
his group in out there in front of people.  It's all about the cause.

I understand this, and I can appreciate what he is trying to do.  I
just don't agree that this is the way to go about it.  If in fact
I'm wrong, and it IS about the credit, then I disagree even more.  
To make this issue about giving credit means that they overstate
their own importance in the big scheme of things.  I am thankfull
for those who did the work, as well as the work they did, but if
they hadn't done it someone else would have.  To think that they
are or were somehow critically important to this movement is 
incredibly foolish.  Nobody is indispensible, that's the beauty
of it.  Any of us could disappear of the face of the earth and 
someone else would pop up to take our place, and things would 
keep going.

-- 

Re: [gentoo-dev] License criteria for Gentoo

[Moritz Schulte]

Mark Bainter <mark-gt@cymry.org> writes:

> I think it really has little to do with giving credit for that
> development to the developers.  That's already done.

Well, it is done, because there are people out there who mention that
GNU is such an important piece of the whole operating system.  If no
one would mention GNU and it would be only the "Linux system" - this
wouldn't seem like much credit to the GNU people to me.

> This is about RMS making sure that the GNU foundation stays at the
> front of people's thoughts.

I think it is a good and also important thing to speak about Free
Software.  But your words make this attitude sound so negative
('crusade') - I don't agree with that.

> To think that they are or were somehow critically important to this
> movement is incredibly foolish.

Really?  I am not so sure wether the Free Software movement would
exist nowadays without the FSF and the GNU Project.

		moritz
-- 
moritz@duesseldorf.ccc.de - http://duesseldorf.ccc.de/~moritz/
GPG fingerprint = 3A14 3923 15BE FD57 FC06  B501 0841 2D7B 6F98 4199

Re: [gentoo-dev] License criteria for Gentoo

[Mark Bainter]

Moritz Schulte [moritz@duesseldorf.ccc.de] wrote:
> Mark Bainter <mark-gt@cymry.org> writes:
> 
> > I think it really has little to do with giving credit for that
> > development to the developers.  That's already done.
> 
> Well, it is done, because there are people out there who mention that
> GNU is such an important piece of the whole operating system.  If no
> one would mention GNU and it would be only the "Linux system" - this
> wouldn't seem like much credit to the GNU people to me.

It is done because names/info is right there in the documentation
and man pages.  Same as every other tool and application.  

> > To think that they are or were somehow critically important to this
> > movement is incredibly foolish.
> 
> Really?  I am not so sure wether the Free Software movement would
> exist nowadays without the FSF and the GNU Project.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion.  However, remember that
nature abhors a vacuum.  In my opinion, it would've simply been a 
matter of time before someone else did it.  This doesn't mean those
who worked hard to bring us what we have today don't deserve our
thanks or credit for what they did, but it DOES mean they shouldn't
get a big head and act like the whole movement hinge(s|d) on their
existence.  It doesn't.  

Re: [gentoo-dev] License criteria for Gentoo

[Moritz Schulte]

Mark Bainter <mark-gt@cymry.org> writes:

> In my opinion, it would've simply been a matter of time before
> someone else did it.

Could be very well.  But this wouldn't change anything for me, since
then I would be very thankful to _that_ people who did what had to be
done.  Just because something important has to be done, I wouldn't
reject giving credit to that people who finally do it.

		moritz
-- 
moritz@duesseldorf.ccc.de - http://duesseldorf.ccc.de/~moritz/
GPG fingerprint = 3A14 3923 15BE FD57 FC06  B501 0841 2D7B 6F98 4199

Re: [gentoo-dev] License criteria for Gentoo

[Mikko Moilanen]

On 24 Sep 2002 18:10:51 +0200
Moritz Schulte <moritz@duesseldorf.ccc.de> wrote:

> Mark Bainter <mark-gt@cymry.org> writes:
> 
> > In my opinion, it would've simply been a matter of time before
> > someone else did it.
> 
> Could be very well.  But this wouldn't change anything for me, since

Evolution of human was miracle. Growth of Free Software is another.

There just are things which are not happening by default. There are things which needed individuals to happen (or they would happen much later, or maybe never). Its good to remember..

E=mc^2
-- 

Mikko

Re: [gentoo-dev] License criteria for Gentoo

[Karan]

* Moritz Schulte (moritz@duesseldorf.ccc.de) wrote:
> "Kevyn Shortell" <kevyn@mac.com> writes:
> 
> Hello,
> 
> let me first clarify this: it is not my intention to nor could I
> "force" anyone to use the name GNU/Linux instead of Linux.  But what
> we can do of course is discussing this topic.
> 
> > I think that's a bastardization of the name, and it's doing a
> > disservice to everything GNU stood for.
> 
> I don't understand that.  I don't understand in what way mentioning
> "GNU" in "GNU/Linux" does damage to what GNU stands for.
> 
> > It takes away from the efforts of those who've worked there, and
> > focuses everything on RMS's attempt to get recognition for GNU.
> 
> Uhm, I also don't understand that.  If I understood you correctly, you
> say that calling the system GNU/Linux "takes away from the efforts of
> those who've worked there"?  I think, the opposite is the case.  By
> not mentioning GNU in the name of the system, we narrow the efforts of
> the people working on the GNU packages, which make the system usable.
> 
> > Note that he doesn't want you to change the name to Linux/GNU. He
> > wants top billing for GNU, he wants GNU/Linux, So why is GNU more
> > important than Linux?
> 
> Well, of course, Linux and GNU components are the most essential
> pieces of the system, but they are essential in a different way.  I
> could imagine that the order "GNU/Linux" has historical roots.  The
> GNU Project was working on this free, Unix like operating system,
> named "GNU".  Many components of GNU were finished, but the Hurd core
> was not ready yet.  At that time Linux envolved and it became obvious
> that all the GNU components combined with the Linux component can form
> a more or less complete operating system.  So the name of system
> wouldn't be GNU anymore - but GNU/Linux.
> 
> > So while we're at it, We then should be accurate and then call it
> > GNU/KDE/SUN/IBM/QT/Python/Drobbins/partsrippedfrombsd Gentoo Linux.
> 
> Well.  There is one difference.  If you remove the GNU component of
> that system, you are in serious trouble, as you _have_ to replace
> that.  Otherwise it wouldn't be fun.  But, if you remove what you call
> "KDE/SUN/IBM/QT/Python/Drobbins/partsrippedfrombsd", you would still
> have the GNU/Linux system in a working state.
> 
> Of course, we can build a system, which has as few GNU components as
> possible.  There are alternative libc implementation, there are not
> only GNU compilers, the GNU {shell,file,find,etc}utils could be
> probably very easily replaced with BSD code or something else.  I
> would not call that GNU/Linux then.  But the system we are talking
> about contains essential GNU software - without it, the system would
> be quiet useless.  It "runs" - I mean, you can also use a nail to put
> a hammer into the wall.
> 
> > Seriously, take a look at how people look at GNU, It's a toolset,
> > it's a compiler, it's a source license, but since when did it become
> > a religious movement, that required people to change their very
> > name, in order to honor it?
> 
> Well, I don't like at GNU like if it would be only a toolset.  Maybe
> you should browse around http://www.gnu.org/ to get a better overview
> about what GNU is.  Nor is it something religious for me.  And of
> course GNU does not require or force any project to change their name.
> It's a free decision for those project wether they want to support GNU
> or not.
> 
> > Linux is an operating system, it is a collection of parts.
> 
> I don't want to disagree with the general sentence "Linux is an
> operating system" - simply because it is obvious that there are
> different definitions of "operating system" (I remember for instance
> that Andrew S. Tanenbaum is using the term "operating system" in his
> book "Modern Operating Systems" to refer to "kernels").  I can only
> say that I don't call Linux an operating system, since I prefer
> another definition.
> 
> > GNU is just one of the many parts, giving in to changing the name
> > for GNU today just means 3 months down the road, the next license
> > that comes along will want the same thing.
> 
> As I already wrote in a different mail, it's not about licenses, it is
> about software components.  And, I have to agree with you - if Gentoo
> plans to substitute all these essential GNU components in Gentoo, then
> it indeed wouldn't make much sense to change the name to GNU/Linux
> now.  But I am not aware of such plans.
> 
> > There is a reason why RedHat, SuSE and Mandrake basically ignored
> > RMS, It makes NO sense to change the name, If RMS wants credit, fine
> > add information in the docs, [...]
> 
> Not RMS wants credit, he doesn't ask Gentoo to use the term RMS/Linux.
> He wants credit for the GNU Project, which means: many, many other
> people.
> 
> > It's suicide to take a marketable name, and ruin it by adding GNU in
> > front of it.
> 
> "ruin it"?
> 
> > Brand names are marketable because they are unique. They are
> > memorable, they have a image associated with it. GNU/Linux, Just
> > frankly is the worst marketing plan I've ever heard of.
> 
> Besides the fact that I don't see the point (I don't know much about
> marketing) - why is marketing that important for Gentoo?
> 
> > Debian was probably hoping to get more publicity from it, as they
> > were in danger of well, ending up where they are...
> 
> Debian is very different from Gentoo, we know that.  But you make that
> sound so negative - just because it is different?  As far as I can
> see, Debian is a quite successfull operating system.
> 
> > I'd rather quit developing, than bow in to political pressure from
> > RMS or anyone else.
> 
> Sorry, "pressure"?  I remember RMS's mail to this list and seriously,
> I cannot find a single bit of pressure in it regarding the term
> GNU/Linux.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 		moritz
> -- 
> moritz@duesseldorf.ccc.de - http://duesseldorf.ccc.de/~moritz/
> GPG fingerprint = 3A14 3923 15BE FD57 FC06  B501 0841 2D7B 6F98 4199
> _______________________________________________
> gentoo-dev mailing list
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
> http://lists.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev

I VERY much agree in this case with moritz !

-- 
Karan "klinx/karan"              |  /*\
http://karant.ath.cx/            |  \ / Join the ASCII Ribbon Campaign
ICQ: 161249154                   |   x  against HTML mail today !
                                 |  / \   

[gentoo-dev] ANN: Proposed Fix for Gentoo (GNU/)Linux Issue

[Drew Whittle]

It occurs to me that there is a very simple way in which to fix this
whole issue:

Gentooians unite and form the GNG (Gentoo is not GNU), the GNG forks the
entire GNU toolset and releases the GNG toolset under the GPL (as we
must under the GPL license)

After all GNU software is free, we can do this, thanks RMS for the
contribution to the GNG!

:D
*ducks for cover*

Re: [gentoo-dev] License criteria for Gentoo

[Henti Smith]

On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 10:03:58 +0000
Karan <karan@ihug.co.nz> wrote:

> I VERY much agree in this case with moritz !

First off. If you are going to add one line to a 3 page mail ... then delete the crap above ... I've read it already .. and not everybody runs on massive lines
some of us are on dailup and this is just spam as far as I'm conserned.

Second. This subject is mute. It's a gnome/kde vim/emacs linux/bsd blah blah topic. there will be no agreement.
if you REALLY want to discuss this .. subscribe to the GNU mailing list and do it there.

I and I'm sure most other people here are subscribed to discuss Gentoo and linux not licencing issues.
If I wanted to discuss licencing issues .. I'd have become a lawyer. NOT STOP IT !!! 

Henti Smith
bain@reaper.org

Re: [gentoo-dev] License criteria for Gentoo

[Moritz Schulte]

Henti Smith <bain@reaper.org> writes:

> I and I'm sure most other people here are subscribed to discuss
> Gentoo and linux not licencing issues.  If I wanted to discuss
> licencing issues .. I'd have become a lawyer.

The thread regarding the name had little to do with licensing issues.

		moritz
-- 
moritz@duesseldorf.ccc.de - http://duesseldorf.ccc.de/~moritz/
GPG fingerprint = 3A14 3923 15BE FD57 FC06  B501 0841 2D7B 6F98 4199

Re: [gentoo-dev] License criteria for Gentoo

[Greg Corcoran]

On Tue, 2002-09-24 at 04:37, Kevyn Shortell wrote:
> Linux is an operating system, it is a collection of parts. 

I thought Linux was a Kernel. Is this not correct?

Greg

Re: [gentoo-dev] License criteria for Gentoo

[Kevyn Shortell]

As taken from http://www.linux.org

What is Linux?

Linux is a free Unix-type operating system originally created by Linux Torvalds with the assistance
of developers around the world. Developed under the GNU General Public License, the source code
for Linux free available to everyone. Click on the link below to find out more about the operating system
that is causing a revolution in the world of computers.

---- Original Message ----- 
From: "Greg Corcoran" <gregc@spidex.com>
To: "Kevyn Shortell" <kevyn@mac.com>
Cc: "Thomas M. Beaudry" <k8la@myrealbox.com>; "Moritz Schulte" <moritz@duesseldorf.ccc.de>; <gentoo-dev@gentoo.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 3:27 PM
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] License criteria for Gentoo


> On Tue, 2002-09-24 at 04:37, Kevyn Shortell wrote:
> > Linux is an operating system, it is a collection of parts. 
> 
> I thought Linux was a Kernel. Is this not correct?
> 
> Greg
> 
> _______________________________________________
> gentoo-dev mailing list
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
> http://lists.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev

Re: [gentoo-dev] License criteria for Gentoo

[Moritz Schulte]

"Kevyn Shortell" <kevyn@mac.com> writes:

> Linux is a free Unix-type operating system [...]

As I already said, there are different definitions of the term
"operating system"

		moritz
-- 
moritz@duesseldorf.ccc.de - http://duesseldorf.ccc.de/~moritz/
GPG fingerprint = 3A14 3923 15BE FD57 FC06  B501 0841 2D7B 6F98 4199

Re: [gentoo-dev] License criteria for Gentoo

[Kevyn Shortell]

In looking in about 4 dictionaries, there is only one common definition of the term, there however are multiple interpretations of said such definition depending on who you talk to. You included.

This is my last post on the subject, because its pointless to keep arguing. The end story is Gentoo will ultimately do what it's primary developers decide is best for Gentoo, not what we or RMS wants.

Kevyn


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Moritz Schulte" <moritz@duesseldorf.ccc.de>
To: "Kevyn Shortell" <kevyn@mac.com>
Cc: "Greg Corcoran" <gregc@spidex.com>; "Thomas M. Beaudry" <k8la@myrealbox.com>; <gentoo-dev@gentoo.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 10:56 PM
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] License criteria for Gentoo


> "Kevyn Shortell" <kevyn@mac.com> writes:
> 
> > Linux is a free Unix-type operating system [...]
> 
> As I already said, there are different definitions of the term
> "operating system"
> 
> moritz
> -- 
> moritz@duesseldorf.ccc.de - http://duesseldorf.ccc.de/~moritz/
> GPG fingerprint = 3A14 3923 15BE FD57 FC06  B501 0841 2D7B 6F98 4199

Re: [gentoo-dev] License criteria for Gentoo

[Moritz Schulte]

"Kevyn Shortell" <kevyn@mac.com> writes:

> The end story is Gentoo will ultimately do what it's primary
> developers decide is best for Gentoo, not what we or RMS wants.

I never thought anything different.

		moritz
-- 
moritz@duesseldorf.ccc.de - http://duesseldorf.ccc.de/~moritz/
GPG fingerprint = 3A14 3923 15BE FD57 FC06  B501 0841 2D7B 6F98 4199

Re: [gentoo-dev] License criteria for Gentoo

[Greg Corcoran]

On Tue, 2002-09-24 at 15:50, Kevyn Shortell wrote:
> As taken from http://www.linux.org
> 
> What is Linux?
> 
> Linux is a free Unix-type operating system originally created by Linux Torvalds with the assistance
> of developers around the world. Developed under the GNU General Public License, the source code
> for Linux free available to everyone. Click on the link below to find out more about the operating system
> that is causing a revolution in the world of computers.
>

Perhaps this is the source of all the confusion. Linux is just a kernel.
It takes a distro to make it an OS.

Greg
 

Re: [gentoo-dev] License criteria for Gentoo

[Giulio Eulisse]

> Perhaps this is the source of all the confusion. Linux is just a kernel.
> It takes a distro to make it an OS.

I though that this list was called gentoo-dev: dev as in developers.
Could you move this boring (!AND BANDWIDTH/TIME CONSUMING!) thread
somewhere else? gentoo@gentoo.org, maybe? Isn't there a moderator for this
list?

-- 
Ciao,
Giulio

<SARCASM>
If fire-fighters fight fire, what do freedom-fighters do?
</SARCASM>

Re: [gentoo-dev] License criteria for Gentoo

[Paul de Vrieze]

On Wednesday 25 September 2002 00:27, Greg Corcoran wrote:
> On Tue, 2002-09-24 at 04:37, Kevyn Shortell wrote:
> > Linux is an operating system, it is a collection of parts.
>
> I thought Linux was a Kernel. Is this not correct?
>

Linux is a unix-like kernel
The collection of software that RMS wants to see called GNU/Linux is an 
operating system.

While the essence of an operating system is formed by it's kernel, the 
operating system could not exist without a standard ABI (Application Binary 
Interface - see gcc-3.x problems), a set of standard libraries (glibc, but 
multiple are allowed), agreed upon locations of certain critical files, A 
standard way to handle authentication (nsswitch/pam/yp). One can make an 
operating system as big as you want it. Microsoft thinks it is big as all the 
graphical user interface is seen as part of the operating system. In the unix 
world the graphical user interface is not seen as part of the operating 
system which allows for different kinds of GUI systems, while the most 
popular system is X. The question is where do you draw the line. Most people 
do agree though that a kernel alone cannot make an operating system, while it 
is certainly the most important part of it. That's why a lot of people just 
call the linux-and-gnu based operating system linux.

Paul

ps. What's in a name?

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Junior Researcher
Mail: pauldv@cs.kun.nl
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

Re: [gentoo-dev] License criteria for Gentoo

[Moritz Schulte]

Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@cs.kun.nl> writes:

> Most people do agree though that a kernel alone cannot make an
> operating system, while it is certainly the most important part of
> it. That's why a lot of people just call the linux-and-gnu based
> operating system linux.

Interesting, that makes me remember the Ford/Mazda comparison somebody
mentioned in this thread: while the Mazda engine is probably the most
important part of the system (the "kernel"), the complete car (the
system as a whole) is named Ford and not Mazda. ;-) But it would be
wrong and weird IMHO to not mention the engine in our car...

		moritz
-- 
moritz@duesseldorf.ccc.de - http://duesseldorf.ccc.de/~moritz/
GPG fingerprint = 3A14 3923 15BE FD57 FC06  B501 0841 2D7B 6F98 4199

Re: [gentoo-dev] License criteria for Gentoo

[Paul de Vrieze]

On Wednesday 25 September 2002 12:21, Moritz Schulte wrote:
> Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@cs.kun.nl> writes:
> > Most people do agree though that a kernel alone cannot make an
> > operating system, while it is certainly the most important part of
> > it. That's why a lot of people just call the linux-and-gnu based
> > operating system linux.
>
> Interesting, that makes me remember the Ford/Mazda comparison somebody
> mentioned in this thread: while the Mazda engine is probably the most
> important part of the system (the "kernel"), the complete car (the
> system as a whole) is named Ford and not Mazda. ;-) But it would be
> wrong and weird IMHO to not mention the engine in our car...
>

To take this into the car analogies.

The car called Linux or Gnu linux
Engine: made by Linus Torvalds & co. branded linux
Gearbox: made by FSF branded glibc
Steering wheel: various misc products by FSF (tar, gzip, bzip2, cpio, cvs,
		diffutils, bash, ed, emacs, etc.)
Body: made (in most cases) by Xfree86.org, branded X
Paint: The buyer can choose between several styles, the most notable KDE and
	GNOME.
Oil: Made by various authors: (hdparm, iptables, util-linux, modutils,
	e2fstools, etc.)
Construction facility: made by FSF branded gcc and binutils
Design tools: made by FSF and branded automake and autoconf.

Of course there are plenty of optional add-ons to the linux car that need not 
all be made using the standard tools/components, but the majority of the 
add-ons are.

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Junior Researcher
Mail: pauldv@cs.kun.nl
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

[gentoo-dev] Proper Gentoo Name (was License criteria for Gentoo)

[Greg Corcoran]

On Wed, 2002-09-25 at 04:35, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> To take this into the car analogies.
> 
> The car called Linux or Gnu linux
> Engine: made by Linus Torvalds & co. branded linux
> Gearbox: made by FSF branded glibc
> and so on with other pieces ...

Excellent points!

This means that the Integrators (the Gentoo developers) are really
building the OS from parts from different suppliers.

These parts are put together as defined by the "system" profile. This is
the base OS.

QED the proper name is:

Gentoo(TM) OS

Greg

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proper Gentoo Name (was License criteria for Gentoo)

[Mark Bainter]

Greg Corcoran [gregc@spidex.com] wrote:
> On Wed, 2002-09-25 at 04:35, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> > To take this into the car analogies.
> > 
> > The car called Linux or Gnu linux
> > Engine: made by Linus Torvalds & co. branded linux
> > Gearbox: made by FSF branded glibc
> > and so on with other pieces ...
> 
> Excellent points!
> 
> This means that the Integrators (the Gentoo developers) are really
> building the OS from parts from different suppliers.
> 
> These parts are put together as defined by the "system" profile. This is
> the base OS.
> 
> QED the proper name is:
> 
> Gentoo(TM) OS

Actually, to take your point all the way, the proper name
is whatever the hell they want to call it.   Gentoo, 
Gentoo Linux, or whatever else one might come up with.

As long as I'm posting on this again, I'd like to comment
on the earlier posts that "all this is over two lines".  
It's not.  Those two lines carry with it everything he's
said about this topic in other forums.  Including his 
abrasive insistance that anyone he does an interview 
with call it GNU/linux while talking to him, and his
posts on other mailing lists and forums and the GNU 
website about this same topic.  

That post was not made in a vacuum.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proper Gentoo Name (was License criteria for Gentoo)

[Paul de Vrieze]

On Wednesday 25 September 2002 13:58, Greg Corcoran wrote:
>
> Excellent points!
>
> This means that the Integrators (the Gentoo developers) are really
> building the OS from parts from different suppliers.
>
> These parts are put together as defined by the "system" profile. This is
> the base OS.
>
> QED the proper name is:
>
> Gentoo(TM) OS
>
> Greg
>

You are right about the integrators. In the car analogy one could say that 
assembly, tuning and distribution are done by diffent organizations such as: 
Redhat, Debian, UnitedLinux, Gentoo Inc.. They by fashion tend to call their 
producs X linux, where X is their name, but indeed Gentoo OS is just as valid 
as Gentoo Linux or Gentoo GNU/Linux. To confuse things the collection of 
different linux-engine based products is also called linux. To be short there 
is the operating system/car that is (possibly) misnomed Linux, and there is 
the kernel/engine that is also called linux. The fact that this kind of cars 
is called linux is a given fact that cannot be neglected (just like it is a 
fact that portable cd players are called discmans while that actually only 
refers to the portable cd players sold by Sony corporation).

Does RMS have a point when he says that the car shouldn't be called only be 
its engine. Yes, I think he does. The car is largely defined too by parts 
from the GNU family of parts. Many of them as essential as the engine. (Car's 
without steering or engine are just as useless as cars without an engine) One 
point that does speak in favor of calling the car after the engine is that 
the gears, and steering weel can be changed or even have multiple 
simultaneous ones. Then one can use that gearbox that suits best for the 
application of the car. For uphill driving one might want to use the glibc 
gearbox, while for speed driving one might want to use a gearbox of a 
different brand. For engines this is a little bit different. The linux engine 
is a so-called macro-kernel. This means that a large part of the chasis is 
welded to the engine and they form an integral part (as opposed to e.g. 
mach/hurd). This means only one engine is possible at the time. Also because 
the chasis forms an integral part of the car the body is directly connected 
to the chasis/engine (Xfree - linux kernel (the display drivers, esp. dri)).

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Junior Researcher
Mail: pauldv@cs.kun.nl
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proper Gentoo Name (was License criteria for Gentoo)

[Moritz Schulte]

Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@cs.kun.nl> writes:

Now we are speaking about cars, ok. ;)

> One point that does speak in favor of calling the car after the
> engine is that the gears, and steering weel can be changed or even
> have multiple simultaneous ones.

Just as a side note: also the engine can be exchanged - by the Hurd.
But this wouldn't work as good as the Linux based version yet.

		moritz
-- 
moritz@duesseldorf.ccc.de - http://duesseldorf.ccc.de/~moritz/
GPG fingerprint = 3A14 3923 15BE FD57 FC06  B501 0841 2D7B 6F98 4199

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proper Gentoo Name (was License criteria for Gentoo)

[Paul de Vrieze]

On Wednesday 25 September 2002 15:04, Moritz Schulte wrote:
> Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@cs.kun.nl> writes:
>
> Now we are speaking about cars, ok. ;)

Well here we have the problems with analogies ;-)

>
> > One point that does speak in favor of calling the car after the
> > engine is that the gears, and steering weel can be changed or even
> > have multiple simultaneous ones.
>
> Just as a side note: also the engine can be exchanged - by the Hurd.
> But this wouldn't work as good as the Linux based version yet.
>

I know that, although one would probably still want a hurd that complies to 
the linux interface, (provides the linux chasis) else we would have a 
different kind of "car" as a "linux" car isn't a "freebsd" car, "hurd" car or 
"windows" car. But yes, for the parts of the car that is not part of the 
suspension/chasis a monster truck (you know, the very very large wheeled 
cars), is just a car. This is also a little bit what wine (or the linux 
compatibility layer on freebsd) does, it provides the connection points on 
the engine and chasis (and even body) that windows compatible utilities 
expect.

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Junior Researcher
Mail: pauldv@cs.kun.nl
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proper Gentoo Name (was License criteria for Gentoo)

[Moritz Schulte]

Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@cs.kun.nl> writes:

> I know that, although one would probably still want a hurd that
> complies to the linux interface, (provides the linux chasis) [...]

What do you mean with "linux interface"?  I guess you mean the system
call interface of Linux.  The Hurd itself cannot conform to that,
because of it's design.

In Linux - and in Unix in general - you can use the system services
via system calls, a uniform way.  This includes accessing files,
creating processes, networking, etc.  In the Hurd, there are seperate
"servers" for such things and the services are used via RPCs.

But since GNU aims POSIX compliance, of course, we have a POSIX
interface , which is encapsulated in glibc.  So, POSIX compliance
programs should compile on GNU/Hurd just as they do on GNU/Linux -
with few exceptions.

In case you were referring to a binary compatibility - which means:
having the same ABI - that does not exist at the moment although there
have been some discussions on that topic on the Hurd lists.

		moritz
-- 
moritz@duesseldorf.ccc.de - http://duesseldorf.ccc.de/~moritz/
GPG fingerprint = 3A14 3923 15BE FD57 FC06  B501 0841 2D7B 6F98 4199

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proper Gentoo Name (was License criteria for Gentoo)

[Paul de Vrieze]

On Wednesday 25 September 2002 16:29, Moritz Schulte wrote:
> Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@cs.kun.nl> writes:
> > I know that, although one would probably still want a hurd that
> > complies to the linux interface, (provides the linux chasis) [...]
>
> What do you mean with "linux interface"?  I guess you mean the system
> call interface of Linux.  The Hurd itself cannot conform to that,
> because of it's design.
>
> In Linux - and in Unix in general - you can use the system services
> via system calls, a uniform way.  This includes accessing files,
> creating processes, networking, etc.  In the Hurd, there are seperate
> "servers" for such things and the services are used via RPCs.
>
> But since GNU aims POSIX compliance, of course, we have a POSIX
> interface , which is encapsulated in glibc.  So, POSIX compliance
> programs should compile on GNU/Hurd just as they do on GNU/Linux -
> with few exceptions.
>
> In case you were referring to a binary compatibility - which means:
> having the same ABI - that does not exist at the moment although there
> have been some discussions on that topic on the Hurd lists.
>

What I mean is binary compatibility meaning that you could one day decide to 
tell your bootloader (e.g. grub) not to load your favourite linux kernel, but 
to load another kernel (in the broad sense) such as HURD, and everything 
would still work. That doesn't mean it needs to be the most optimal way, but 
it must run.

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Junior Researcher
Mail: pauldv@cs.kun.nl
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

[gentoo-dev] /usr/portage/distfiles/ name collisions

[Chris Bainbridge]

Twice in the last two days I've had to deal with packaging distribution files 
that have source URIs with the same basenames (eg. I have two packages that 
pull in examples.tar.gz, and a package that gets released to a version 
directory like ${PV}/package.tar.gz). Portage gets confused, thinks I already 
have the file, then fails the checksum. Is there any way to override the 
fetch behaviour in an ebuild, eg. to record the full uri like 
/usr/portage/distfiles/http://... ? 

Re: [gentoo-dev] /usr/portage/distfiles/ name collisions

[Bart Verwilst]

On Wednesday 25 September 2002 16:09, Chris Bainbridge wrote:
|| Twice in the last two days I've had to deal with packaging distribution
|| files that have source URIs with the same basenames (eg. I have two
|| packages that pull in examples.tar.gz, and a package that gets released to
|| a version directory like ${PV}/package.tar.gz). Portage gets confused,
|| thinks I already have the file, then fails the checksum. Is there any way
|| to override the fetch behaviour in an ebuild, eg. to record the full uri
|| like
|| /usr/portage/distfiles/http://... ?

No, you should report the packages that have those same versionless names to 
our bugzilla, so the dev can change the name of the package (adding a version 
or something), and put it on ibiblio directly.

Thanks!

-- 
Bart Verwilst
Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop Team
Gent, Belgium

Re: [gentoo-dev] /usr/portage/distfiles/ name collisions

[Chris Bainbridge]

On Wednesday 25 September 2002 15:29, you wrote:
> On Wednesday 25 September 2002 16:09, Chris Bainbridge wrote:
> || Twice in the last two days I've had to deal with packaging distribution
> || files that have source URIs with the same basenames (eg. I have two
> || packages that pull in examples.tar.gz, and a package that gets released
> || to a version directory like ${PV}/package.tar.gz). Portage gets
> || confused, thinks I already have the file, then fails the checksum. Is
> || there any way to override the fetch behaviour in an ebuild, eg. to
> || record the full uri like
> || /usr/portage/distfiles/http://... ?
>
> No, you should report the packages that have those same versionless names
> to our bugzilla, so the dev can change the name of the package (adding a
> version or something), and put it on ibiblio directly.
>
> Thanks!

These are ebuilds that I was writing myself, they haven't been added to 
ebuilds cvs yet. One is proprietory and couldn't be redistributed on ibiblio 
(http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8312). Any solution here?

Oh and I just discovered about adding stuff to /etc/env.d.. the ebuilds I've 
looked at seem to use xxpacakge for the name, does the xx mean anything or do 
we just start at 00 and work our way up?

[gentoo-dev] Re: Proper Gentoo Name (was License criteria for Gentoo)

[Moritz Schulte]

Greg Corcoran <gregc@spidex.com> writes:

> This means that the Integrators (the Gentoo developers) are really
> building the OS from parts from different suppliers.

Of course.

> QED the proper name is:
> 
> Gentoo(TM) OS

I would prefer that over Gentoo Linux.

		moritz
-- 
moritz@duesseldorf.ccc.de - http://duesseldorf.ccc.de/~moritz/
GPG fingerprint = 3A14 3923 15BE FD57 FC06  B501 0841 2D7B 6F98 4199

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Proper Gentoo Name (was License criteria for Gentoo)

[Greg Corcoran]

Distrowatch has gone through great effort to catalog all distributions
that use Linux kernel technology. Distrowatch has clearly spent special
attention to documenting the names so they are clearly aware of the
naming issue:

Some of the distros that dropped the Linux moniker: 

Lycoris Desktop/LX
Sorcerer
LindowsOS
Xandros Desktop OS
CRUX
Turbolinux
SmoothWall GPL
LinEx
Ayrsoft eBoxit
IPCop Firewall
ClarkConnect Broadband Gateway


Some of the distros that went with GNU/Linux:

Debian GNU/Linux
Source Mage GNU/Linux
Linuxin GNU/Linux

I guess in the end I don't really care what we call it. Since its easier
to do nothing my guess is that it will stay as Gentoo Linux unless one
of the senior developers wants more flexibility with the name.

Well here's two more names I thought of:

Gentoo XP
Stallman's Gentoo
;-)

Greg

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proper Gentoo Name (was License criteria for Gentoo)

[wes chow]

That should be "QED" if and only if the naming scheme the car industry has 
chosen is indeed the correct thing to do.

The car analogy isn't so useful becuase it's important that we do what's
right, not that we do what already has a precedent.  Gentoo is Portage.  
Portage needs GNU utilities like a fish needs a bicycle.


Wes


On 25 Sep 2002, Greg Corcoran wrote:

> On Wed, 2002-09-25 at 04:35, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> > To take this into the car analogies.
> > 
> > The car called Linux or Gnu linux
> > Engine: made by Linus Torvalds & co. branded linux
> > Gearbox: made by FSF branded glibc
> > and so on with other pieces ...
> 
> Excellent points!
> 
> This means that the Integrators (the Gentoo developers) are really
> building the OS from parts from different suppliers.
> 
> These parts are put together as defined by the "system" profile. This is
> the base OS.
> 
> QED the proper name is:
> 
> Gentoo(TM) OS
> 
> Greg
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> gentoo-dev mailing list
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
> http://lists.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev
> 

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proper Gentoo Name (was License criteria for Gentoo)

[Moritz Schulte]

wes chow <wes@woahnelly.net> writes:

> Gentoo is Portage.  Portage needs GNU utilities like a fish needs a
> bicycle.

If you look at it this way, then Portage, and therefore Gentoo, does
not need Linux at all.

		moritz
-- 
moritz@duesseldorf.ccc.de - http://duesseldorf.ccc.de/~moritz/
GPG fingerprint = 3A14 3923 15BE FD57 FC06  B501 0841 2D7B 6F98 4199

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proper Gentoo Name (was License criteria for Gentoo)

[wes chow]

I agree with that conclusion.


On 25 Sep 2002, Moritz Schulte wrote:

> wes chow <wes@woahnelly.net> writes:
> 
> > Gentoo is Portage.  Portage needs GNU utilities like a fish needs a
> > bicycle.
> 
> If you look at it this way, then Portage, and therefore Gentoo, does
> not need Linux at all.
> 
> 		moritz
> -- 
> moritz@duesseldorf.ccc.de - http://duesseldorf.ccc.de/~moritz/
> GPG fingerprint = 3A14 3923 15BE FD57 FC06  B501 0841 2D7B 6F98 4199
> 

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proper Gentoo Name (was License criteria for Gentoo)

[Paul de Vrieze]

On Wednesday 25 September 2002 16:09, wes chow wrote:
> I agree with that conclusion.
>
I see gentoo as an idea of how to maintain an operating system and the 
available programs. We could "god forbid" even one day get a "gentoo windows" 
distribution ;-)

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Junior Researcher
Mail: pauldv@cs.kun.nl
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proper Gentoo Name (was License criteria for Gentoo)

[Evan Read]

I agree, but I wouldn't find it useful anymore. I find the Linux kernel 
useful for many of the things that run on it alone (usually non-free 
software). Otherwise I would prolly use a BSD (I prefer the dev model) ;).

Gentoo needs Linux otherwise 3 people will use it.  Linux is why people 
use it.

Even a BSD kernel would not be as usefull (except in certain performance 
criteria).

All of these may be additions and choices, I guess.  Be Gentoo's strength 
is Linux more than portage.  To me (and probably me alone ;).

Evan.


On Wed, Sep 25, 2002 at 10:09:36AM -0400, wes chow wrote:
> 
> I agree with that conclusion.
> 
> 
> On 25 Sep 2002, Moritz Schulte wrote:
> 
> > wes chow <wes@woahnelly.net> writes:
> > 
> > > Gentoo is Portage.  Portage needs GNU utilities like a fish needs a
> > > bicycle.
> > 
> > If you look at it this way, then Portage, and therefore Gentoo, does
> > not need Linux at all.
> > 
> > 		moritz
> > -- 
> > moritz@duesseldorf.ccc.de - http://duesseldorf.ccc.de/~moritz/
> > GPG fingerprint = 3A14 3923 15BE FD57 FC06  B501 0841 2D7B 6F98 4199
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> gentoo-dev mailing list
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
> http://lists.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev

-- 
Evan Read
http://eread.freeshell.org

"The future comes 60 minutes an hour no matter who you are or what you 
do." 
	The Screwtape Letters - C.S. Lewis

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proper Gentoo Name (was License criteria for Gentoo)

[Paul de Vrieze]

On Wednesday 25 September 2002 16:01, wes chow wrote:
> That should be "QED" if and only if the naming scheme the car industry has
> chosen is indeed the correct thing to do.
>
> The car analogy isn't so useful becuase it's important that we do what's
> right, not that we do what already has a precedent.  Gentoo is Portage.
> Portage needs GNU utilities like a fish needs a bicycle.
>

No, gentoo is as much portage as Redhat is rpm. If that were the case SUSE and 
Redhat would be the same, as they are both rpm based.

I don't mean that portage isn't important to the gentoo distribution, as it 
is. It doesn't define the distribution though. If someone uses the gentoo 
stage three to start his system, and then unmerges portage anduninstalls its 
leftovers that person would still be running gentoo. If he afterwards decides 
to compile X, kde, etc. he is still running gentoo. He could even decide to 
write a portage clone that uses a different database (like the now abandoned 
portage2), but still uses the ebuilds, he would most certainly be running 
gentoo. The thing is, everything is replaceable. Gentoo is the general 
architecture and thought of the system. Of course gentoo for now is dependant 
on the gnu toolchain. This doesn't mean though that replacements couldn't be 
made and used. If gentoo oneday decided to stop using gcc and binutils 
(replace them with e.g. icc), and ported the bsd utilities to linux, would 
the system behave differently. No, not at all (maybe in speed). Would it so 
be a different distribution. No. Well, if we didn't allow the choice, it 
would be, but that is because gentoo is about choice now and choicelesness is 
not "the gentoo way"(TM).

Not that I care much wether or not the name of the distribution is Gentoo 
GNU/Linux or Gentoo Linux. I think the use of the name linux might be useful 
to the future as we might get a whole gentoo family of distributions as we 
now allready have various ports to different architectures. I do see a Gentoo 
Hurd happening sometime, in which case a name with linux in it is useful.

One thing still. A kernel is a fundamentally different thing than a toolchain 
as the gnu toolchain. Unless one implements differnent virtual machines on 
one real computer (even then there must be some kernel logic centrally), a 
computer can only run one kernel at a time. Why can only one real kernel run 
at one time. Basically because a computer has limited resources. It has only 
one mouse that I'm currently moving, and one keyboard that I'm currently 
typing. These actions need to be handled by the software for the computer to 
be able to for example move the screen pointer as a result of my mouse 
movement. The problem is that we don't want to have a fight over which 
program has control over my mouse. For that we need some "police" agent that 
decides who has control. Well the kernel is that police agent. The kernel 
"polices" a variety of devices including: the processor(s), the memory, the 
keyboard, the display, the mouse, the soundcard, the interrupt controller. It 
is even so that the ix86 where x>3 has provisions so that a kernel can tell 
the processor what priviledge a process has, and which I/O ports and memory 
ranges it can access. Those provisions effectively lock unpriviledged 
processes from using I/O. If a process wants to use I/O (such as X) it needs 
to ask the kernel for access to it. The kernel will only give access to a 
process when no other process is using the particular device.

Of course people have also started to confuse the linux distribution with the 
linux kernel. Gentoo is a linux distribution, and a linux distribution also 
depends on other things than the kernel. It very much depends on the 
availability of a lot of parts such as the gnu toolchain, glibc, but also on 
X to be available.

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Junior Researcher
Mail: pauldv@cs.kun.nl
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proper Gentoo Name (was License criteria for Gentoo)

[Moritz Schulte]

Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@cs.kun.nl> writes:

> Well the kernel is that police agent. The kernel "polices" a variety
> of devices including: [...]

Just as a side note: what you describe is how it was done in Unix;
it's not the only way.  For instance, the L4 microkernel contains
almost no hardware drivers at all.  Hardware drivers have to be
implemented as L4 tasks, which do not run in kernel space.  One of the
main jobs of the kernel is than to translate interrupts into IPC
messages, which are sent to the user space hardware drivers.

		moritz
-- 
moritz@duesseldorf.ccc.de - http://duesseldorf.ccc.de/~moritz/
GPG fingerprint = 3A14 3923 15BE FD57 FC06  B501 0841 2D7B 6F98 4199

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proper Gentoo Name (was License criteria for Gentoo)

[Paul de Vrieze]

On Wednesday 25 September 2002 21:35, Moritz Schulte wrote:
> Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@cs.kun.nl> writes:
> > Well the kernel is that police agent. The kernel "polices" a variety
> > of devices including: [...]
>
> Just as a side note: what you describe is how it was done in Unix;
> it's not the only way.  For instance, the L4 microkernel contains
> almost no hardware drivers at all.  Hardware drivers have to be
> implemented as L4 tasks, which do not run in kernel space.  One of the
> main jobs of the kernel is than to translate interrupts into IPC
> messages, which are sent to the user space hardware drivers.
>
> 		moritz

The thing is, even when using a micro kernel, the microkernel grants EXCLUSIVE 
access to a hardware driver. So the kernel in the broad sense of the word 
(including the userspace drivers) can still not be replaced.

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Junior Researcher
Mail: pauldv@cs.kun.nl
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proper Gentoo Name (was License criteria for Gentoo)

[wes chow]

> > The car analogy isn't so useful becuase it's important that we do what's
> > right, not that we do what already has a precedent.  Gentoo is Portage.
> > Portage needs GNU utilities like a fish needs a bicycle.
> >
> 
> No, gentoo is as much portage as Redhat is rpm. If that were the case SUSE and 
> Redhat would be the same, as they are both rpm based.

Good point... here's the subtle difference that I overlooked:  Gentoo is
Portage plus a collection of ebuilds.  The analogy, then, is that RedHat
and SuSE use the same distribution method (RPMs), but consist of packages
built by a different group of people.  (note, I have zero experience with
SuSE, so I could be far off the mark)  Thus, if you rip out Portage and
start your own collection of ebuilds, you will no longer have a Gentoo
system.  I think this is a resonable distinction, because a different
group of developers would manage that collection and have its own set of
bugs and userbase and file layout, etc.

A distribution is a collection or package of software.  I don't see why
the contents of any package should dictate the name of that package.  I
don't follow that logic.


Wes

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proper Gentoo Name (was License criteria for Gentoo)

[Paul de Vrieze]

On Wednesday 25 September 2002 21:57, wes chow wrote:
>
> Good point... here's the subtle difference that I overlooked:  Gentoo is
> Portage plus a collection of ebuilds.  The analogy, then, is that RedHat
> and SuSE use the same distribution method (RPMs), but consist of packages
> built by a different group of people.  (note, I have zero experience with
> SuSE, so I could be far off the mark)  Thus, if you rip out Portage and

That's about right

> start your own collection of ebuilds, you will no longer have a Gentoo
> system.  I think this is a resonable distinction, because a different
> group of developers would manage that collection and have its own set of
> bugs and userbase and file layout, etc.
>

That's how I see it.

> A distribution is a collection or package of software.  I don't see why
> the contents of any package should dictate the name of that package.  I
> don't follow that logic.
>

Neither do I. It is though sometimes usefull for people to have some 
indication in the package name of its contents.

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Junior Researcher
Mail: pauldv@cs.kun.nl
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proper Gentoo Name (was License criteria for Gentoo)

[Mark Guertin]

On Thu, 2002-09-26 at 03:23, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> On Wednesday 25 September 2002 21:57, wes chow wrote:
> >
> > Good point... here's the subtle difference that I overlooked:  Gentoo is
> > Portage plus a collection of ebuilds.  The analogy, then, is that RedHat
> > and SuSE use the same distribution method (RPMs), but consist of packages
> > built by a different group of people.  (note, I have zero experience with
> > SuSE, so I could be far off the mark)  Thus, if you rip out Portage and
> 
> That's about right
> 
> > start your own collection of ebuilds, you will no longer have a Gentoo
> > system.  I think this is a resonable distinction, because a different
> > group of developers would manage that collection and have its own set of
> > bugs and userbase and file layout, etc.
> >
> 
> That's how I see it.
> 

Not true at all, Gentoo is also the whole init system (scripting and
tmpfs sides), try doing env-update or rc-update add sshd default on
another distro.

There is a lot more to Gentoo than portage or the ebuilds we supply for
users.  It is unlike any of the RedHat or the knockoffs (Mandrake, etc)
in that Gentoo actually brought something _new_ to the table, and it was
more than a little something.

Mark

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proper Gentoo Name (was License criteria for Gentoo)

[Paul de Vrieze]

On Thursday 26 September 2002 16:32, Mark Guertin wrote:
>
> Not true at all, Gentoo is also the whole init system (scripting and
> tmpfs sides), try doing env-update or rc-update add sshd default on
> another distro.
>
Of course that is also what defines a distribution although I could imagine 
gentoo providing different profiles that have for example different init 
scripts or other architecture changes. That would be gentoo to the extreme.


> There is a lot more to Gentoo than portage or the ebuilds we supply for
> users.  It is unlike any of the RedHat or the knockoffs (Mandrake, etc)
> in that Gentoo actually brought something _new_ to the table, and it was
> more than a little something.

You are right. Gentoo brought flexibility and power (for the user and the 
system)

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Junior Researcher
Mail: pauldv@cs.kun.nl
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

Re: [gentoo-dev] License criteria for Gentoo

[Benj]

On Sunday 22 September 2002 4:55 pm, Richard Stallman wrote:
> (If you would call the system Gentoo GNU/Linux, that would help us
> also.  See http://www.gnu.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html.)

This was done to death on this list, with a whole range of opinions for and 
against.  Wasn't the idea to include  a USE variable of something, so that 
users could choose which to call it? Personally, it's Gentoo Linux, I'm 
afraid that GNU neither rolls of the tounge, nor looks very good.  Which is 
shallow, I know, but I don't think I'm alone...

Re: [gentoo-dev] License criteria for Gentoo

[Moritz Schulte]

Benj <ben@thatproject.co.uk> writes:

> Wasn't the idea to include a USE variable of something, so that
> users could choose which to call it?

This has nothing to do with the actuall point.  People asking the
Gentoo team to call the system GNU/Linux don't ask simply because they
would like to read the small word "GNU" on _their_ system - they can
change _their_ system.  I think, quite few people care about wether my
/etc/issue says Linux or GNU/Linux.  Nor is it of much interest of
wether I prefer the name Linux or GNU/Linux.  The point is that the
name GNU/Linux gives credits to the GNU Project, which has helped so
much to create this "Linux system" we like to use - in a technical but
also in a philosophical way.  But all this is already written down in
the URL RMS gave.  The point is that the name GNU/Linux would make
some people realize what Linux is and what GNU is.  It would probably
make more people understand how important GNU is and that is a bit
weird to call the whole operating system "Linux".

The argument was given that Phython is not part of the GNU Project,
although it is an essential piece for the Gentoo part of the Gentoo
system.  Still, the system on which Portage is running is the same.

		moritz
-- 
moritz@duesseldorf.ccc.de - http://duesseldorf.ccc.de/~moritz/
GPG fingerprint = 3A14 3923 15BE FD57 FC06  B501 0841 2D7B 6F98 4199

Re: [gentoo-dev] License criteria for Gentoo

[Spider]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1420 bytes --]

Now.. Would every one here just take a moment and ....

 B A C K   O F F !

Just see here.. Two lines.. here below: 

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> wrote:
> (If you would call the system Gentoo GNU/Linux, that would help us
> also.  See http://www.gnu.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html.)


AND HOW MANY MESSAGES ABOUT IT?
 

The signal:noise ratio went dead here.

<signal>
his points about the license is valid, and a good one at that. I quite
like the concept of "emerge system" only pulling in sk. "free" licenses.
 thats what we have right now in practicallity, I see no reason to
change the formality to match the practicality.

<noise>
as for the name  change.. er.. No.
simply cause then I couldnt go and port the BSD userspace tools + libc
to the linux kernel and package in Gentoo... then it wouldn't be GNU
linux .. itd be BSD Linux .. And we'd have anther name.. Bah bah bah.


Call the system you install GNU/Linux if you wish. I know mine is mostly
GNU/Linux. but I would sure want to try and make Gentoo possibly
something more than GNU. I dont want to tie my efforts to that only. 
for now we ship only GNU  as the "real hard core" (of course, our own
work... BSD stuff and the python + perl things.. but those hardly
count.......)



// Spider
   Irate developer


--
begin  .signature
This is a .signature virus! Please copy me into your .signature!
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information.
end

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] License criteria for Gentoo

[Kevyn Shortell]

Do a package count, then go find out which ones are GNU.
You'd be surprised, how many aren't.Then go look at the GNU
web page, and see how many packages, Didn't used to be under
the GNU banner, and now are. Seems a little like Microsoft to me.

The issue is, if RMS puts those quiet little two lines in an email
at some point to every dist on the planet, in the hopes of making 
GNU seem a lot more important that it really is its not a small thing.
If you just add a small blurb in a email about something else, It looks 
like its an after-thought, and people don't take it as a direct request.
That's why people do this, very sneaky. Got to give him credit.

But ask around to other dists who have been approached by RMS, 
they all say the same thing regarding RMS and GNU.  

Yes, GNU is important. It is important enough to change the name? 
No. If  RMS truly wanted to evangelize the benefits of GNU, why 
isn't he trying to get more sites to have information about GNU on 
their site? Why is he trying to change the name of every dist on the 
planet? Because he thinks that having GNU in front of every name 
makes people think of GNU in a positive light. How many users 
actually KNOW what GNU is based off calling something 
GNU/Linux? Probably none. 

So why such a large push from RMS to do this? And yes it is a large 
push, When RMS hunts down a mailing list for dists and mails there, 
as opposed to posting an email to the people who run the dist, it is very
deliberate. It is about politics, and how RMS wants people to publicly 
validate GNU. We have. We use GNU's projects, we like them, but
to join the cult of GNU seems a little excessive. Think about it, at what
point does GNU become what they were founded to fight against?
I've heard for years people are considering a NGNU (Not GNU) project
just because of RMS's tactics. This says more about RMS and GNU 
than any webpage EVER could.

It's like any Ford small truck, The engine and transmission is made by 
Mazda. Does Mazda require Ford to call the truck a Mazda/Ford Ranger? 
No. That would be stupid. The truck can't run without those parts, but 
does Mazda care if they get credit? No they care that Ford and its customers
are happy, And if you were to open the hood, You'd notice the Mazda 
logo here and there on things. 

So if RMS truly wanted to further the GNU cause, he'd get distro's to 
provide more information on the dist page, about GNU, and the 
benefits, where users could go and read about why GNU was important. 
It's been mentioned to him in several forums, does he do it? No he keeps 
building the GNU empire and claims to be doing for the benefit of the 
community. 

So how does causing animosity and resentment benefit the community? 

It doesn't.

Kevyn

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Spider" <spider@gentoo.org>
To: <gentoo-dev@gentoo.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 12:53 PM
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] License criteria for Gentoo

Re: [gentoo-dev] License criteria for Gentoo

[Moritz Schulte]

"Kevyn Shortell" <kevyn@mac.com> writes:

> Do a package count, then go find out which ones are GNU.  You'd be
> surprised, how many aren't.Then go look at the GNU web page, and see
> how many packages, Didn't used to be under the GNU banner, and now
> are. Seems a little like Microsoft to me.

Hu?  When projects decide to be part of the GNU project, the GNU
project "seems a little like Microsoft"?  Weird.

> If RMS truly wanted to evangelize the benefits of GNU, why isn't he
> trying to get more sites to have information about GNU on their
> site?

Give an example, I can hardly imagine what you are thinking of.

> Why is he trying to change the name of every dist on the planet?

s/every dist/distributions built in top of GNU + Linux/

> So why such a large push from RMS to do this? And yes it is a large
> push, When RMS hunts down a mailing list for dists and mails there,
> as opposed to posting an email to the people who run the dist, it is
> very deliberate.

Why should he mail the users?  The developers decide which name a
project has, not the users.  And I also don't see why he is "hunting
down a mailing list".

> Think about it, at what point does GNU become what they were founded
> to fight against?

The GNU project was founded to develop a free operating software, to
develop free software in general, to establish the free software
movement, etc.  I don't get your point.

> It's like any Ford small truck, The engine and transmission is made
> by Mazda. Does Mazda require Ford to call the truck a Mazda/Ford
> Ranger?

GNU does not "require" anyone to use GNU in their name, I don't know
where you get that from.  It is simply a matter of helping, of
supporting and of giving credits.  In this movement, or this scene,
such things are very important.  Ford has simply bought something from
Mazda, that's why Mazda has no reason to ask Ford to use "Mazda" in
the name.

> No he keeps building the GNU empire and claims to be doing for the
> benefit of the community.

"GNU empire" seems like a contradiction to me.

> So how does causing animosity and resentment benefit the community?

Sorry, I cannot follow your conclusions.

		moritz
-- 
moritz@duesseldorf.ccc.de - http://duesseldorf.ccc.de/~moritz/
GPG fingerprint = 3A14 3923 15BE FD57 FC06  B501 0841 2D7B 6F98 4199

Re: [gentoo-dev] License criteria for Gentoo

[Ryan Shaw]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 592 bytes --]

On Wed, 2002-09-25 at 06:03, Kevyn Shortell wrote:

> Do a package count, then go find out which ones are GNU.
> You'd be surprised, how many aren't.

Sorry, but that is a really stupid way to gauge the
importance of GNU. The GNU toolchain comprises the 
most important packages on your system, the required
core packages of every Linux distro. They are the 
tools that made it possible for Linus to develop his
kernel. Just because they happen to be outnumbered 
by Nethack clones, P2P clients, and photo gallery
scripts, does NOT mean they should be marginalized.

Ryan Shaw

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] License criteria for Gentoo

[Kevyn Shortell]

Nor does it mean they should be put on a pedestal and worshiped.

Kevyn
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ryan Shaw" <ryan.shaw@stanfordalumni.org>
To: "Kevyn Shortell" <kevyn@mac.com>
Cc: <gentoo-dev@gentoo.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 5:21 PM
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] License criteria for Gentoo