Re: RH and GNOME
On Tue, 21 Jul 1998, Kysh Dragon wrote:
> > > > So far, Red Hat as been pretty consistent about licensing everything
> > > > with GNU's GPL. Considering some of the recent discussions here, they
> > > > might even be more solidly in support of GNU's GPL than we are.
> > >
> > > Are you mad? RedHat doesn't even acknowledge the GNU component of their
> > > system. `RedHat Linux', not `Gnu Linux'.
> >
> > Semantics.
>
> Not semantics. I don't remember where off the top of my head, but I
> believe GNU expressed its wishes to have a Gnu/Linux system known as such,
> rather than just Linux. Of course, we're not going to call it
> Gnu/BSD/Xfree/Bind/.../Linux, but GNU has contributed very major parts of
> the system -- parts that, honestly, there wouldn't BE a system without.
It wasn't 'GNU', it was RMS. And, I thought he was a bit silly at the
time. It is only semantics. I'm not saying that we should change our
name - I think 'Debian GNU/Linux' is a good name. It gives credit where
it is due. But you can't really condemn RedHat for not following suit.
It is more or less fundemental to the DFSG that I have the right to create
a derivative work of Debian, name it what I like, and sell it (as long as
I provide full source code, and the right to redistribute, to the end
user).
>
> This is a digression, so I'll trim back onto the subject.
True.
>
> > >
> > > I trust RedHat about as far as I can spit, and not that far.
> > >
> >
> > Your privilege. But when you talk like that, you aren't speaking for
> > Debian, just youself.
>
> Nor do I claim to speak for Debian. Do I have `Debian Spokesdragon' in my
> signature or my `Real Name' field? No.
Of course not. But I am making a serious point. Debian (and here, I am
taking the liberty of speaking for the project [1]) does not need, or
want, a reputation as 'RedHat-bashers'.
[ The dragon suggests an unwillingness to switch to a common package
format]
> > That's bigoted. We use dpkg at the moment because it has concrete
> > advantages over RPM. If another system were proposed which encompassed
> > our requirements, and enabled us to share packages with RedHat, that would
> > be a *huge* advantage.
>
> That's like sharing underwear with a leper.
!
I hardly think that deserves an answer. There have been many occasions
when I've wished I could use an rpm (yes, I know about alien), and some
commercial stuff is distributed as rpms (not that I use commercial
software personally when I can avoid it - but this provides value to our
users).
>
> > > > The strength of Linux is that we're a free software community.
> > > > That means the competition is non-free software, not free software.
> > > > Red Hat is on our side, I believe. So is Cygnus. So is FSF.
> > >
> > > RedHat, being a commercial company with interests ranging only in making
> > > money (And to do this, they have to maintain their reputation -- which is
> > > why they want to come off as benifiting the free software community), is
> > > on no-ones side but their own.
> > >
> >
> > That is very nearly libellous. There may well be some people in RedHat
> > who think like that. And, yes, they need money to feed their families.
> > But they *do* release their distribution for free download, and they *do*
> > GPL the work they do. So they are on our side.
>
> First you say what I say is libellous, and then you agree with my whole
> point, summing it up with a disagreement of MY OWN summation! Amusing.
>
I don't know about you Kysh, but I have to earn money, too. And I do it
in computing. I daresay that's true for a notable proportion of debian
developers. Believing in free software is *not* exclusive to making money
in the computing industry.
> > > > For that matter, even non-free outfits (Corel, Caldera, Sun, Microsoft,
> > > > etc.) can be on our side, though obviously some are much more helpful
> > > > than others. [But that's another rather involved thread.]
> > >
> > > You -must- be joking.
> >
> > He's not. But I'm not going to bother to argue the point. It seems
> > obvious enough to me.
> >
> > It is my opinion - and I have seen this backed up on debian-private - that
> > there is no place in debian for anti-redhat feelings. It's chauvinism,
> > really. Sure, joke about them as much as you like - but I cannot agree
> > with the sentiments of your email.
>
> I didn't ask you to. :>
>
> You -Know- RH is slimy when they've got insiders here, too. ;>
> (Seriously, that's more of a joke than anything else - I'm not paranoid,
> I'm just an idealist)
OK. That's a joke. It's in pretty bad taste. I am not, in any sense, an
RH insider - but I imagine there are RH people on this list - and why the
hell shouldn't there be?
Jules
/----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------\
| Jelibean aka | jules@jellybean.co.uk | 6 Evelyn Rd |
| Jules aka | jules@debian.org | Richmond, Surrey |
| Julian Bean | jmlb2@hermes.cam.ac.uk | TW9 2TF *UK* |
+----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------+
| War doesn't demonstrate who's right... just who's left. |
| When privacy is outlawed... only the outlaws have privacy. |
\----------------------------------------------------------------------/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: