Re: [gentoo-dev] Distribution Name

[Jerry A! <jerry@thehutt.org>]

On Tue, Jan 30, 2001 at 12:43:24AM -0500, Steven R. Baker wrote:
: 
: 	I can't speak for Dan, but...  Isn't GNU/Linux a Stallmanism?
: 	I recall reading an interview with Linus where he doesn't even
: 	think it should be called GNU/Linux, but just plain Linux.
: 
: Yes, GNU/Linux *is* a Stallmanism, it just so happens that Stallman is
: right and Linus is wrong.  Linux is just a kernel, nothing more.  An
: operating system consists of a kernel as well as the software that
: goes into it.  The software that makes up a base system is made by GNU
: (the compiler, libc, all of the userland utilities) therefore, it's a
: GNU system.  You can be running a BSD, Sun, Mach, or HURD kernel and
: still be running a GNU system.

All the software that makes up a base system isn't GNU.  The default DB
is BerkeleyDB.  Perl falls under your choice of licenses.  Dcron is
under BSD.  Python has it's own license.  Daemontools falls under DJB's
license.  Do you use BIND?  An MTA other than Exim?

Why limit your scope of vision?  This is all open-source software.

: Some argue that FreeBSD uses GCC and other GNU utilities as well,
: however, FreeBSD uses *only* the GNU C Compiler, and has their own
: libc and userland utilities.  GNU/Linux is the correct name for a GNU
: system running on top of the Linux kernel.

Actually, that's not true.  There's a lot more than just GCC in *BSD.
How do you define what the break-point is for a GNU system?  Percentage
of software?  Intent?  Does this mean that this should be Gentoo BSD/GNU
Linux.

: Is Python in Gentoo linked with libreadline?  If so, that's a GPL
: violation.  Don't get me wrong, I *love* Python, but there should be
: some sort of policy or mechanism that says what can go in to Gentoo
: and what can't.  Don't you care about your Freedom?

Actually, that's not true.  The GPL states the restrictions of usage.
Specifically, Section 2 breaks down to saying that if you use GPL'd
software, then you must make you source code publically available.  Thus
your argument becomes a non-issue.

Oh, I do care about my freedom a great deal.  But how do you define
freedom?  Is it an open environment w/out restrictions?  Or is it an
environment with only the restrictions you approve of?

The fact is that many talented people put lots of hard work into this
stuff.  I define freedom by respecting their choice as to which license
they choose to use.

        --Jerry

name:  Jerry Alexandratos         ||  Open-Source software isn't a
phone: 703.599.6023               ||  matter of life or death...
email: jerry@akopia.com           ||  ...It's much more important
                                  ||  than that!