[gentoo-dev] Distribution Name

[gentoo-dev] Distribution Name

[Steven R. Baker]

Hi there, I'm interested in getting start with Gentoo.  There are a
couple of concerns that I have, however.

First, I'm a very ardent advocate of the Free Software Movement, and
the GNU Project, so naturally I was wondering why you decided to call
the distribution Gentoo Linux instead of properly, Gentoo GNU/Linux?

Also, I was wondering if there is a policy regarding licensing issues
that you follow as a project.  IE: do you keep track of which licenses
are compatible with which?  A little known fact is that the Python 2.x
license is incompatible with the GPL, so no GPL code can be used with
Python without explicit written permission from the author.  What kind
of safeguards do you have against this?

Also, I'm very interested in getting involved in the packaging tools.
Where does the letter 'e' come from?  As in ebuild...  Is that form
Gentoo's days as Enoch?

And last, my computer isn't capable of booting from CD-ROM.  How do I
start the Gentoo installer?  (I do, however, have a CD burner).

Thanks,
-Steven

Re: [gentoo-dev] Distribution Name

[Jerry A!]

On Tue, Jan 30, 2001 at 12:18:41AM -0500, Steven R. Baker wrote:
: First, I'm a very ardent advocate of the Free Software Movement, and
: the GNU Project, so naturally I was wondering why you decided to call
: the distribution Gentoo Linux instead of properly, Gentoo GNU/Linux?

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.

: Also, I was wondering if there is a policy regarding licensing issues
: that you follow as a project.  IE: do you keep track of which licenses
: are compatible with which?  A little known fact is that the Python 2.x
: license is incompatible with the GPL, so no GPL code can be used with
: Python without explicit written permission from the author.  What kind
: of safeguards do you have against this?

However, the license is OSI-compliant.  In theory, this code "infection"
would take place if we were talking about GPL/BSD projects.

Though, I don't see this as an issue.  We're not developing or extending
the internals of Python.  Everything is being created as external
packages.

        --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!

Re: [gentoo-dev] Distribution Name

[Steven R. Baker]

	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.

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.

	However, the license is OSI-compliant.  In theory, this code
	"infection" would take place if we were talking about GPL/BSD
	projects.

	Though, I don't see this as an issue.  We're not developing or
	extending the internals of Python.  Everything is being
	created as external packages.

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?

Re: [gentoo-dev] Distribution Name

[Jerry A!]

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!

Re: [gentoo-dev] Distribution Name

[Steven R. Baker]

	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.

I didn't mean *all*, I made a generalization.  And I didn't mean
"base" as in the base install of gentoo.  I meant the bulk of the
programs that you need to have to have a functioning system.  I'm
specifically talking about the toolchain (gcc, gdb, glibc, and
friends) and the findutils/binutils/shellutils/textutils/bash/etc.

Open source is the wrong term.  APSL is "open source" but it's not
Free software.  Open source usually means more or less the same thing,
see:
    http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html

In order for software to be free, you have to have 4 basic freedoms:
    - The freedom to use for *any* purpose.
    - The freedom to study how the program works.
    - The freedom to share with your neighbour.
    - The freedom to improve the software and distribute your
      changes.

All of the software you mentioned is Free Software, that's not what
I'm arguing.  I'm arguing that the name "Linux" conveys the wrong
idea.  For more information, see:
    http://www.gnu.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html

	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.

Okay, once again I made a generalization.  I *know* there is more than
just GCC in FreeBSD, GCC is the most important of the GNU software in
FreeBSD.  That's not the point.

Though I don't really go by numbers, I would say that perhaps 10-15%
of the software in an Operating System should be GNU software before
one calls the system "GNU".  More importantly that *how much*
software, I think it is important to tell *which* software.  Without
GNU, Linux would not exist.  Linux could not be distributed as an
operating system (in its current form) without the GNU utilities it
depends on.  If FreeBSD decided to eliminate all of the GNU software
from their project, they would still have a functional operating
system.  They wouldn't have a C Compiler, but they would have a
functional operating system.

If you don't believe me, go through your system and delete all of the
GNU software.  See if it boots.  Then, go through a FreeBSD system and
delete all of the GNU software, and see if *that* boots.  That's the
difference.  (I've done the latter, I know. :))

	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.

I must be mis-informed of the Python issue.  Pardon my ignorance,
I apologize.  I *am* concerned about a policy regarding what software
gets put into the Gentoo project though, if there is one.  For
instance, do you allow Netscape in Gentoo?  It's probably a bad idea,
since Netscape is not Free Software, and usage of Free Software is
wrong.

	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?

See the four points listed above.

	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.

I'm not arguing about licenses.  The GPL, LGPL, BSD, X, Python, MIT,
MPL, ZPL, NPL, and more are all Free Software licenses.  The
difference is that licenses like the GPL *preserve* freedom.  If I
write a piece of software and release it under the GPL, nobody else
can take my piece of software, modify it, and not release it under the
GPL.  Important software has been made possible because of this.  The
GNU Objective-C compiler (it's great!) is a good example of this.
NeXT wanted to use the GCC front-end for their compiler, but was
*forced* to release the source code to it, because of the GPL.  We now
have a *Free* Objective-C compiler.  Also, there are a few programs
that are GPL simply because the GNU ReadLine library requires it.

I suggest you read about categories of software at:
    http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html

For that matter, take a browse around the whole philosophy section at
GNU's website, http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/, and perhaps listen to
(at least the first part) of RMS' presentation at LinuxTAG (it's in
Ogg format).

I think we pretty much agree on the issues of freedom here, I think
we're just articulating it differently.

As far as Dan is concerned, I know that he agreed with me once upon a
time when we used to work on Stampede together, because he's one of
the ones that enlightened me.  If he's changed his mind since Fall
1997, I don't know, but it is possible. :P

By the way, I'm not looking for an argument, and I appreciate your
willingness to discuss this.

-Steven

Re: [gentoo-dev] Distribution Name

[Achim Gottinger]

>

Hi,

Some comments of mine.

1. We use python because the ebuild system is in heavy development and
python is  very good for RAD.
    If we have all the features we want in ebuild wewill port it t C++,
so this GPL problem isonly temporary.

2. You must separate the portage tree fron the iso's. In the near future
(1.0-final or a bit later) it should
   be possible to build a system that relyies only on GPL'ed software. We
don't care about GPL-philosophies
   for our release-candidate iso's because we want to provide a
fullfeatured and usable system that includes
   most of the things you expenct a linux-distro to have at the moment.
Try to see it like portage is some sort
   of distribution-framework and the iso is just an example what you can
do with it.


achim~

Re: [gentoo-dev] Distribution Name

[drobbins]

On Tue, Jan 30, 2001 at 12:43:24AM -0500, Steven R. Baker wrote:

> 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.

The "G" (first letter) in Gentoo stands for "GNU".  Also, Achim, our lead
developer, has the last name "Gottinger".  The "G" in Gottinger stands for
"GNU".  My last name is "Robbins", and the "s" in Robbins stands for
"Stallman".  Whenever I type a "G", "N", "U" or "S" on my keyboard, you can be
sure that I do so with full and total reverence towards Richard Stallman and
the GNU project.  Sometimes, I purposely type the word "snug" and  
tears well up inside me.

Little known fact: Psygnosis US was also located at 675 Massachusetts Ave,
Cambridge, MA.  I worked at Psygnosis for a couple of years.  We were on the
sixth floor, and the GNU mail room was in the basement.  Our warehouse was in
the basement.  We had cool things in our warehouse, like full stock of all
Psygnosis products, posters, and cool stand-up cardboard Lemmings.  In their
mailroom?  Two strange women and a bag of mail.  My point?  I'll let you try
to figure that out.

> 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?

The policy is that we include all the good stuff we can get our hands on.  I
haven't heard of anyone getting arrested for linking python with libreadline. 

-- 
Daniel Robbins					<drobbins@gentoo.org>
President/CEO					http://www.gentoo.org 
Gentoo Technologies, Inc.			

Re: [gentoo-dev] Distribution Name

[Aaron Held]

I thought gentoo was short for Generation 2, what do I know.

I've been wrestling with free/GNU philosophy both at a personal level as well as a professional.

At home I use a dual-boot mandrake/win2000 machine and have been boasting about how I only use Linux for my personal and eBusiness
consulting (eCommerce websites)  But the other day a client needed a complex org-chart type map of a project and after spending a
hour time with DIA I rebooted and spent 15 minutes with the Visio spreadsheet -> org chart wizard. Visio isn't free but I never
regretted buying it.

I am also working on a business plan for a "revolutionary" new hardware platform and debating with my other partners (in the legal
and CEO type categories) about the merits of an Open Source vs Proprietary and the intellectual property aspects of the entire
system.  Its really hard to stay focused on a certain philosophy when it goes against what makes good business sense (Although
recently they have been starting to agree with me.  A day or two at LinuxWorld in NYC this week should complete their
indoctrination. I have also been discussing using Linux internally as a desktop as well, and although its great for certain jobs,
like tech support, sales, and people that use a specific piece of SW (that runs on Linux), its not a good solution for creative and
'management' types that need to use certain software apps that are only available on MS.  So even if we sell a product and
distribute open source software with it, we will most likely not be running Linux internally on 100% of the machines.

I guess my point is that while I consider myself an decent open source/GNU advocate I do not personally nor do I recommend others
use only open source software.  I do, however, strive to ensure that all the software I develop, as well as what is developed around
me, is "Free".

So:

My $0.02

Continue to make gentoo the best it can be, with a focus on being as open and free as possible without getting in the way of the
stated goals of the project.


Thanks,
-Aaron
===================================================================
As Isaac Newton would say now:
        If I see further than others, it is because I stand on
        the shoulders of giants too dumb to patent their discoveries.
  (Gregory Palast, http://www.observer.co.uk/ )



----- Original Message -----
From: <drobbins@gentoo.org>
To: <gentoo-dev@gentoo.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 1:51 PM
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Distribution Name


> On Tue, Jan 30, 2001 at 12:43:24AM -0500, Steven R. Baker wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> The "G" (first letter) in Gentoo stands for "GNU".  Also, Achim, our lead
> developer, has the last name "Gottinger".  The "G" in Gottinger stands for
> "GNU".  My last name is "Robbins", and the "s" in Robbins stands for
> "Stallman".  Whenever I type a "G", "N", "U" or "S" on my keyboard, you can be
> sure that I do so with full and total reverence towards Richard Stallman and
> the GNU project.  Sometimes, I purposely type the word "snug" and
> tears well up inside me.
>
> Little known fact: Psygnosis US was also located at 675 Massachusetts Ave,
> Cambridge, MA.  I worked at Psygnosis for a couple of years.  We were on the
> sixth floor, and the GNU mail room was in the basement.  Our warehouse was in
> the basement.  We had cool things in our warehouse, like full stock of all
> Psygnosis products, posters, and cool stand-up cardboard Lemmings.  In their
> mailroom?  Two strange women and a bag of mail.  My point?  I'll let you try
> to figure that out.
>
> > 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?
>
> The policy is that we include all the good stuff we can get our hands on.  I
> haven't heard of anyone getting arrested for linking python with libreadline.
>
> --
> Daniel Robbins <drobbins@gentoo.org>
> President/CEO http://www.gentoo.org
> Gentoo Technologies, Inc.
>
> _______________________________________________
> gentoo-dev mailing list
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
> http://www.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev

Re: [gentoo-dev] Distribution Name

[Jerry A!]

On Tue, Jan 30, 2001 at 05:08:16PM -0500, Aaron Held wrote:
: I thought gentoo was short for Generation 2, what do I know.
: 
: I've been wrestling with free/GNU philosophy both at a personal level
: as well as a professional.

I think this is where the clear distinction between open-source and GNU
philosophies differ.

Open souce isn't about anti-microsoft.  It's about pro-choice.

        --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!

Re: [gentoo-dev] Distribution Name

[Aaron Held]

> : I thought gentoo was short for Generation 2, what do I know.
> :
> : I've been wrestling with free/GNU philosophy both at a personal level
> : as well as a professional.
>
> I think this is where the clear distinction between open-source and GNU
> philosophies differ.
>
> Open souce isn't about anti-microsoft.  It's about pro-choice.

If I gave that impression then I apologize, I am not anti-MS in terms of both using thier software and selling it.  But I do believe
that GNU 'forcing' developers to keep the code open will be better in the long run.

I also believe in practicing what I preach, so if I am suggesting that Linux can be used as a stable platform for typical employee
workstations, then I best be able to use it at some level for my own work.

I also get annoyed when people go out of thier way to alienate MS software and users, like KWord not being able to export rtf or MS
Word.  I would rather not let the us vs them mentality infect my search for tools and technologies that allow me to get my job done
well.

-Aaron

Re: [gentoo-dev] Distribution Name

[Steven R. Baker]

	The "G" (first letter) in Gentoo stands for "GNU".  Also,
	Achim, our lead developer, has the last name "Gottinger".  The
	"G" in Gottinger stands for "GNU".  My last name is "Robbins",
	and the "s" in Robbins stands for "Stallman".  Whenever I type
	a "G", "N", "U" or "S" on my keyboard, you can be sure that I
	do so with full and total reverence towards Richard Stallman
	and the GNU project.  Sometimes, I purposely type the word
	"snug" and tears well up inside me.

It's been a while, Dan.  Nice to see that you have more of a sense of
humour about things now. :)

	Little known fact: Psygnosis US was also located at 675
	Massachusetts Ave, Cambridge, MA.  I worked at Psygnosis for a
	couple of years.  We were on the sixth floor, and the GNU mail
	room was in the basement.  Our warehouse was in the basement.
	We had cool things in our warehouse, like full stock of all
	Psygnosis products, posters, and cool stand-up cardboard
	Lemmings.  In their mailroom?  Two strange women and a bag of
	mail.  My point?  I'll let you try to figure that out.

So GNU has two strange women in their mail room.  At Psygnosis, you
were writing proprietary software, likely under non-disclosure
agreements, writing what *others* told you to write, and the company
had no personality.  If there was a god, she would punish writing
proprietary software and signing NDAs.

	The policy is that we include all the good stuff we can get
	our hands on.  I haven't heard of anyone getting arrested for
	linking python with libreadline.

That's right, because who cares if you are free to do with your
software as you please?

Re: [gentoo-dev] Distribution Name

[Steven R. Baker]

	I thought gentoo was short for Generation 2, what do I know.

I think Dan was joking. :P

	At home I use a dual-boot mandrake/win2000 machine and have
	been boasting about how I only use Linux for my personal and
	eBusiness consulting (eCommerce websites) But the other day a
	client needed a complex org-chart type map of a project and
	after spending a hour time with DIA I rebooted and spent 15
	minutes with the Visio spreadsheet -> org chart wizard. Visio
	isn't free but I never regretted buying it.

There is plenty of other Free Software you could have beenusing.
GNOME and related apps are usually poor examples of good Free
Software. :P  For instance, you could've been using Lout.

You should have regretted buying it.  What if your neighbour wants a
copy of Visio.  Can you legally give him a copy?  It's a well known
fact that no program can ever be known to be bug free, what happens
when you find a crippling bug in Visio?  And don't say they don't
exist, because they do.

You keep saying ``Linux'', and judging from the context, I'm going to
assume that you were referring to the operating system, GNU/Linux.

	I guess my point is that while I consider myself an decent
	open source/GNU advocate I do not personally nor do I
	recommend others use only open source software.  I do,
	however, strive to ensure that all the software I develop, as
	well as what is developed around me, is "Free".

You should recommend that others use only Free Software.  I use only
Free Software, and have for years, and I don't feel left out in the
least.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Distribution Name

[Bill Anderson]

Steven R. Baker wrote:

> Hi there, I'm interested in getting start with Gentoo.  There are a
> couple of concerns that I have, however.
> 
> First, I'm a very ardent advocate of the Free Software Movement, and
> the GNU Project, so naturally I was wondering why you decided to call
> the distribution Gentoo Linux instead of properly, Gentoo GNU/Linux?

What someone wants to call a distribution of something using the Linux 
kernel is none of Stallman's affair. Linus has the trademark on Linux, and 
he is the final, and sole arbiter of what you can do with the name. 
Stallman can make decisions relating to 'GNU', but has no authority of the 
Linux trademark, nor over what an individual decides to call their 
distribution. A distribution is by definition a collection, as is thus 
covered under the collection of works parts of copyright law. In fact, 
this is particularly covered by the GPL, where it states that aggregation 
is not covered by the GPL where the Product is not based on the GPL'd 
product. Since all Linux distributions are by definition based on the 
Linux Kernel, the proper base of licensing is the Linux Kernel.

In fact, on other points, the 'GNU/Linux' argument falls flat as well. the 
acronym GNU stands for 'Gnus Not Unix' and as such bears no relation to a 
distribution of Linux, or any other operating system. Note further, that 
the use of GNU tools does not require you use the term GNU in your 
product's name. As such, there is nothing improper in not doing so.

I love RMS as much as the next guy, but in this case he, and you, are not 
correct.

 
> Also, I was wondering if there is a policy regarding licensing issues
> that you follow as a project.  IE: do you keep track of which licenses
> are compatible with which?  A little known fact is that the Python 2.x
> license is incompatible with the GPL, so no GPL code can be used with
> Python without explicit written permission from the author.  What kind
> of safeguards do you have against this?


This 'little known fact' is false. The python license only applies to 
_Python_, and developing derivatives. The license of Python is no more 
relevant to what Gentoo is doing than the C/C++ licenses are. Since we are 
not modifying python in any way, merely developing products using a 
_language_ there is no concern for how the language itsself is licensed. 
Me writinbg a python script is no more a derivative of python than you 
compiling a program in C is a derivative of C. It is the author of the 
code, and their license that is the sole issue with developing products 
that use python.

For example, if I, Bill Anderson write a nifty python program, and you 
decide you want to use some of my code, you must get _my_ permission; the 
license of python is irrelevant.

Another, more concrete and relevant example:
RedHat wrote a set of python rpm libraries in python. IF, for some reason, 
we wanted to use those libraries (perhaps as a base for an rpm-ebuild 
converter .. oooh neat idea) we would need to look at the license that 
Redhat put on their code, not the python license.

Sorry if any of this sounds harsh, or perhaps bitter, but I have been 
through these issues over and over again, especially in the BigCorp I work 
for, and have been in discussion with the legal dept., and some of the 
parties named herein.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Distribution Name

[Bill Anderson]

Steven R. Baker wrote in part:

...
> You should recommend that others use only Free Software.  I use only
> Free Software, and have for years, and I don't feel left out in the
> least.

Stallman doesn't recommend this.
;^)=

Re: [gentoo-dev] Distribution Name

[Achim Gottinger]

Bill Anderson wrote:

> Steven R. Baker wrote:
>
> > Hi there, I'm interested in getting start with Gentoo.  There are a
> > couple of concerns that I have, however.
> >
> > First, I'm a very ardent advocate of the Free Software Movement, and
> > the GNU Project, so naturally I was wondering why you decided to call
> > the distribution Gentoo Linux instead of properly, Gentoo GNU/Linux?
>
> What someone wants to call a distribution of something using the Linux
> kernel is none of Stallman's affair. Linus has the trademark on Linux, and
> he is the final, and sole arbiter of what you can do with the name.
> Stallman can make decisions relating to 'GNU', but has no authority of the
> Linux trademark, nor over what an individual decides to call their
> distribution. A distribution is by definition a collection, as is thus
> covered under the collection of works parts of copyright law. In fact,
> this is particularly covered by the GPL, where it states that aggregation
> is not covered by the GPL where the Product is not based on the GPL'd
> product. Since all Linux distributions are by definition based on the
> Linux Kernel, the proper base of licensing is the Linux Kernel.
>
> In fact, on other points, the 'GNU/Linux' argument falls flat as well. the
> acronym GNU stands for 'Gnus Not Unix' and as such bears no relation to a
> distribution of Linux, or any other operating system. Note further, that
> the use of GNU tools does not require you use the term GNU in your
> product's name. As such, there is nothing improper in not doing so.
>
> I love RMS as much as the next guy, but in this case he, and you, are not
> correct.
>
>
> > Also, I was wondering if there is a policy regarding licensing issues
> > that you follow as a project.  IE: do you keep track of which licenses
> > are compatible with which?  A little known fact is that the Python 2.x
> > license is incompatible with the GPL, so no GPL code can be used with
> > Python without explicit written permission from the author.  What kind
> > of safeguards do you have against this?
>
> This 'little known fact' is false. The python license only applies to
> _Python_, and developing derivatives. The license of Python is no more
> relevant to what Gentoo is doing than the C/C++ licenses are. Since we are
> not modifying python in any way, merely developing products using a
> _language_ there is no concern for how the language itsself is licensed.
> Me writinbg a python script is no more a derivative of python than you
> compiling a program in C is a derivative of C. It is the author of the
> code, and their license that is the sole issue with developing products
> that use python.
>
> For example, if I, Bill Anderson write a nifty python program, and you
> decide you want to use some of my code, you must get _my_ permission; the
> license of python is irrelevant.
>
> Another, more concrete and relevant example:
> RedHat wrote a set of python rpm libraries in python. IF, for some reason,
> we wanted to use those libraries (perhaps as a base for an rpm-ebuild
> converter .. oooh neat idea) we would need to look at the license that
> Redhat put on their code, not the python license.

ebuild->rpm works.
rpm/spec->ebuild whould not be too difficult with redhat-spec because they
install to a tempdir too. SuSE-specs
could not be convertet automatic because they install directly to the
filesystem when building rpm's.
Imagine building a complete redhat distribution with the ebuild system. :-)

achim~

>
>
> Sorry if any of this sounds harsh, or perhaps bitter, but I have been
> through these issues over and over again, especially in the BigCorp I work
> for, and have been in discussion with the legal dept., and some of the
> parties named herein.
>
> _______________________________________________
> gentoo-dev mailing list
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
> http://www.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev

Re: [gentoo-dev] Distribution Name

[Bill Anderson]

Steven R. Baker wrote:

...

> In order for software to be free, you have to have 4 basic freedoms:
>     - The freedom to use for *any* purpose.
>     - The freedom to study how the program works.
>     - The freedom to share with your neighbour.
>     - The freedom to improve the software and distribute your
>       changes.

Don't forget the freedom to charge for your work.

 
> All of the software you mentioned is Free Software, that's not what
> I'm arguing.  I'm arguing that the name "Linux" conveys the wrong
> idea.  For more information, see:
>     http://www.gnu.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html
> 
> 	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.
> 
> Okay, once again I made a generalization.  I *know* there is more than
> just GCC in FreeBSD, GCC is the most important of the GNU software in
> FreeBSD.  That's not the point.
> 
> Though I don't really go by numbers, I would say that perhaps 10-15%
> of the software in an Operating System should be GNU software before
> one calls the system "GNU".  More importantly that *how much*
> software, I think it is important to tell *which* software.  Without
> GNU, Linux would not exist.  Linux could not be distributed as an
> operating system (in its current form) without the GNU utilities it
> depends on.  If FreeBSD decided to eliminate all of the GNU software

And without Linux, one could easily argue that GNU would not be in it's 
present form either. GNU has grown and thrived due to the use of the Linux 
kernel. Should not, then, by identical argument, GNU be called Linux/GNU?
You can't make the claim that Linux would not be around if it were not for 
GNU, without realizing that GNU is in the same basic predicament.

> from their project, they would still have a functional operating
> system.  They wouldn't have a C Compiler, but they would have a
> functional operating system.
> 
> If you don't believe me, go through your system and delete all of the
> GNU software.  See if it boots.  Then, go through a FreeBSD system and
> delete all of the GNU software, and see if *that* boots.  That's the
> difference.  (I've done the latter, I know. :))

OK, now delete the Linux kernel and tell me how well your GNU OS works. :)

Not being an ass here, but the claims that you (and RMS have) are making 
apply equally to GNU. Hurd is still not usable, and will probably lag way, 
way behind Linux kernel development for a long time to come. I am tired, 
though, of GNU zealots insisting the Linux community acknowledge GNU, but 
then not realizing that they need to acknowledge Linux.

<tongue partly in cheek>
And besides, GNU relies on C. Should we then not call it C-GNU? Perhaps 
C-Linux?
</tongue>

 
> 	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.
> 
> I must be mis-informed of the Python issue.  Pardon my ignorance,
> I apologize.  I *am* concerned about a policy regarding what software
> gets put into the Gentoo project though, if there is one.  For
> instance, do you allow Netscape in Gentoo?  It's probably a bad idea,
> since Netscape is not Free Software, and usage of Free Software is
> wrong.

No, no, no. Use of Free Software is not wrong. ;)

Ok, now I will make the assumption you meant use of non-free software is 
wrong. I disagree with that. You are then by implication of wrongness, 
attempting to remove my freedom to choose what I use, and to choose.

Is playing a game on my Sega PlayStation 'wrong'? No. Do you use a VCR? 
The software inside is not free software. Same for your TV, the power 
relays, and many, many other items you use in your daily life. There are 
many instances where free software is not an option, nor does it fit., 
even RMS acknowledges this.

> 
> 	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?
> 
> See the four points listed above.
> 
> 	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.
> 
> I'm not arguing about licenses.  The GPL, LGPL, BSD, X, Python, MIT,
> MPL, ZPL, NPL, and more are all Free Software licenses.  The
> difference is that licenses like the GPL *preserve* freedom.  

Actually, to be correct, they preserve one type of freedom, at the expense 
of others. Each different type of license serves it's purpose. There is 
no, nor can there be a, universal license. Witness the existanece of the 
LGP, which, btw, is what glibc is licensed under. Some are better in some 
situations than others. Failure to understand this leads to problems.


> write a piece of software and release it under the GPL, nobody else
> can take my piece of software, modify it, and not release it under the
> GPL.  Important software has been made possible because of this.  The
> GNU Objective-C compiler (it's great!) is a good example of this.
> NeXT wanted to use the GCC front-end for their compiler, but was
> *forced* to release the source code to it, because of the GPL.  We now
> have a *Free* Objective-C compiler.  Also, there are a few programs
> that are GPL simply because the GNU ReadLine library requires it.

And there are a larger, and growing, number of programs that exist because 
the LPGL exists, and was used instead of the GPL.

 
> I suggest you read about categories of software at:
>     http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html
> 
> For that matter, take a browse around the whole philosophy section at
> GNU's website, http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/, and perhaps listen to
> (at least the first part) of RMS' presentation at LinuxTAG (it's in
> Ogg format).

Ogg is way cool :)


> I think we pretty much agree on the issues of freedom here, I think
> we're just articulating it differently.

Actually, I think there are different definitions of 'freedom' being used. 
but that's partly semantics ;)

Oh, and BTW, please quit assuming you are the only one here who has read 
(in detail, btw) the writings of RMS, and the GNU foundation. Some of us 
have extemsive experience with it, and some experience with some of the 
authors of said document. It comes off as (though I *don't* think you 
intend it to) as arrogance. :(

Bill Anderson

Re: [gentoo-dev] Distribution Name

[drobbins]

On Fri, Feb 02, 2001 at 12:08:28PM -0700, Bill Anderson wrote:

> And without Linux, one could easily argue that GNU would not be in it's 
> present form either. GNU has grown and thrived due to the use of the Linux 
> kernel. Should not, then, by identical argument, GNU be called Linux/GNU?
> You can't make the claim that Linux would not be around if it were not for 
> GNU, without realizing that GNU is in the same basic predicament.

Bill, I think you've hit the nail on the head.  This is my general theory and I
can't help but believe that RMS's "GNU/Linux" stance is motivated by jealousy.
I guess I can relate; it is typical geek behavior for someone such as RMS to
give 1001 logical-sounding and somewhat technical reasons as to why he needs a
hug.  If RMS and the GNU developers need a hug, I'm happy to give them one, but
I wish they'd just acknowledge the fact that it's an emotional need, rather
than something that they've earned due to divine moral laws that only they seem
to understand.  The thing that bugs me about their approach is that when they
try to explain how they should be given credit, it makes it appear as if there
is a hidden clause to the GNU license -- that we must worship RMS as God.  It
turns the efforts of the GNU project from an admirable selfless act into one
motivated by pride.  Ironically, their approach seems to generate just the
opposite sentiment than the one they were trying to artificially illicit in the
first place.  

But Steven had a totally valid question that I sidestepped -- how is Gentoo
Linux going to address this whole licensing issue?  I've talked with Achim
privately, and we will begin recording the license(s) of all packages in the
ebuild, probably in a similar format to the DEPEND variables.  This
functionality will be integrated into the next version of Portage, and will
allow people who aren't comfortable with certain licenses to instruct ebuild
not to build those particular packages.  Those who are interested can then
enhance our Portage tree to provide GNU or non-GNU (or "X" or "non-X") versions
of various packages, as they desire.

The philosophy underlying this decision is that Gentoo Linux shouldn't be
"Daniel's personal distro".  Instead, Gentoo Linux should be an operating
system that can be customized to the needs and concerns of its users.  Since we
can easily cater to this particular concern, it makes sense to do so rather
than impose my will upon all those who disagree with me.

Also, on a related note, there are some packages that we can't legally 
distribute as binaries.  These packages won't be available as packages,
but will be available as ebuilds so that everyone can build them on their
local machine.

> Ogg is way cool :)

I used ogg in the olden days, but I'm using shorten 3.2 for lossless audio
compression now.  It would be nice to add ogg to Portage, and this would be
a nice way to get familiar with the Portage system.  Any takers?

Best Regards,

-- 
Daniel Robbins					<drobbins@gentoo.org>
President/CEO					http://www.gentoo.org 
Gentoo Technologies, Inc.			

Re: [gentoo-dev] Distribution Name

[Bill Anderson]

Achim Gottinger wrote:

> Bill Anderson wrote:

...

>> Another, more concrete and relevant example:
>> RedHat wrote a set of python rpm libraries in python. IF, for some reason,
>> we wanted to use those libraries (perhaps as a base for an rpm-ebuild
>> converter .. oooh neat idea) we would need to look at the license that
>> Redhat put on their code, not the python license.
> 
> 
> ebuild->rpm works.
> rpm/spec->ebuild whould not be too difficult with redhat-spec because they
> install to a tempdir too. SuSE-specs
> could not be convertet automatic because they install directly to the
> filesystem when building rpm's.
> Imagine building a complete redhat distribution with the ebuild system. :-)

hmmm ... that would be very, very cool.
I may have to play with that ... :^)=

Bill