Re: [gentoo-dev] Distribution Name

[Bill Anderson <bill@noreboots.com>]

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.