Re: *BSD and GNU/*BSD nomenclature (was: Re: X Strike Force SVN commit: rev 183 - in branches/4.3.0/sid/debian: . patches)
On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 10:08:42AM -0600, Joel Baker wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 04:52:39PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> >
> > You just said it is "*not* GNU-based". Do you know what GNU/Something means?
>
> *sigh* It was early in the morning. I typed GNU on autopilot; I *meant*
> "GNU libc & other stuff".
erm, so that was a typo?
> As for knowing what GNU/Something means - does
> *anyone*? Nobody could explain the details when it was first debated, and
> to date, nobody has explained them here, either.
According to the GNU folks, it's a variant of the GNU system for which
"Something" may provide some indication on what it differs from GNU.
> > RMS would never request placing "GNU/" in the name of a system that is
> > "*not* GNU-based".
>
> Maybe. Maybe not. He requested it of systems that didn't consider
> themselves GNU based, but *he* considered them to be. Debian agreed with
> him, others didn't. C'est la vie.
that's right (although it's discussable what "themselves" means here), but
we're not talking about GNU/Linux.
> The port maintainers have done their best to try to ascertain what,
> exactly, the GNU/* means, and have failed to get useful answers, yes. So. I
> present to you the following system; you tell me if it's GNU, or not, and
> if at all possible please cite references to RMS (or at least FSF folks)
> asserting any particular point.
No, i was asking wether _you_ think it's a GNU variant. My opinion is that
it shouldn't be considered as such, but i'm not going to defend that opinion
with citations whatsoever (though if others want to, they're welcome to).
> Keep in mind that the rest of Debian might also have a say, though I
> strongly suspect that as long as we have clear reasoning, nobody will care
> much which way it goes.
Feel free to discuss it if you think it's necessary, but note my concern is
only with the contradiction of calling it "GNU/NetBSD", but still saying it's
not a GNU variant. If that was just a typo then let's drop it here.
--
Robert Millan
Reply to: