From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 (2022-12-14) on finch.gentoo.org X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.1 required=5.0 tests=DATE_IN_PAST_12_24, DMARC_MISSING,FREEMAIL_FROM,FROM_LOCAL_DIGITS,FROM_LOCAL_HEX, FROM_STARTS_WITH_NUMS,INVALID_DATE,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=4.0.0 Received: from mailout03.sul.t-online.com ([194.25.134.81]) by cvs.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #1) id 14OOqP-0001dX-00 for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Thu, 01 Feb 2001 11:52:35 -0700 Received: from fwd07.sul.t-online.com by mailout03.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 14OOr1-0004vN-01; Thu, 01 Feb 2001 19:53:11 +0100 Received: from helios.bagwan (320095285153-0001@[62.226.149.25]) by fwd07.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 14OOqc-1NeBRwC; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 19:52:46 +0100 Received: (qmail 11444 invoked by uid 0); 1 Feb 2001 21:34:02 -0000 Received: from sadchitananda2.bagwan (HELO gottinger.de) (achim@192.168.2.1) by helios.bagwan with SMTP; 1 Feb 2001 21:34:02 -0000 Message-ID: <3A79A9E4.4986DBFD@gottinger.de> From: 320095285153-0001@t-online.de (Achim Gottinger) X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Distribution Name References: <87lmrtliry.fsf@scooby.mysterymachine.ddts.net> <3A7AFEF5.8000308@noreboots.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Sender: 320095285153-0001@t-dialin.net Sender: gentoo-dev-admin@gentoo.org Errors-To: gentoo-dev-admin@gentoo.org X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org X-Reply-To: achim@gentoo.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Gentoo Linux development list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu Feb 1 11:53:01 2001 X-Original-Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 19:24:36 +0100 X-Archives-Salt: 84492aad-1bf5-48cd-b158-4464800b47e7 X-Archives-Hash: 7e2d4681b4a619a2e42066908fe74217 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