Re: Debian trademark [was: Debian GNU/w32, may ready to be started?]
On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 02:05:55PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Dale Scheetz <dwarf@polaris.net> writes:
>
> > On 3 Dec 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> >
> > > Dale Scheetz <dwarf@polaris.net> writes:
> > >
> > > > RMS approached Debian nearly insisting that the distro be called Debian
> > > > GNU/Linux because of the large component of GNU sofware in the distro. Why
> > > > would he have any different desire for a set of GNU packages delivered to
> > > > a non-Linux platform?
> > >
> > > Because that particular non-Linux platform is not a free software
> > > platform.
> >
> > So, neither is Sun OS. GNU software runs just fine in that proprietary OS.
>
> Nobody calls it "GNU/SunOS".
>
> > According the the FSF, any distribution that uses the complete set of GNU
> > tools IS a GNU system, no matter what you want to call it.
>
> Um, no. You just don't understand the FSF's position. The FSF's
> position is that there is a specific operating system, called "GNU".
> There is this related thing, called "GNU/Linux", which is a variant of
> the GNU system in which the kernel is Linux.
>
> But if you try to make a variant of the GNU system in which the kernel
> isn't even free, you've stripped out an essential part of the GNU
> system, so that the result is not even a variant of the GNU system
> anymore.
No, I don't thank that the problem is that people don't understand the
position. I think that almost no one except possibly the Beast from
Redmond and RMS agree with this definition of an operating system.
Lets take some examples. For example, under what definition is the GIMP
part of the operating system? How is postgresql, which is not GPL
licensed and which is quite adamantly NOT part of any GNU system,
part of the operating system?
Answer: by any sane definition, they are not. They are part of
user space. They are part of the distribution.
That FSF tries to take credit for all of "GNU/Linux",
and in fact for the existence of linux is, at best, revisionist.
Now, it is true that Unix-like operating systems have traditionally
used userspace applications to provide much functionality that is
provided directly by other operating systems. For example, ls is
a user-space in unix. It was not in CP/M. This blurs the distinction
somewhat. But not to the point of "Every Program is a Part of the GNU
System".
In other words, while I have no particular objection to calling
Debian a GNU/Linux derived system (although honesty would also
compel one to add BSD, X-Windows, PARC, and a whole slew of other
influences), not every program in the distribution is part of
the "GNU/Linux Operating System". In fact, most items distributed
by Debian, even GPL licensed programs, are neither part of any
operating system, nor are they authored by the FSF.
Note: you will not see me running or advocating "Debian GNU/w32".
I like a stable kernel, thank you. However, if autobuilders can
be built, and they will handle at least as much software as some
of the weaker portions of the distribution; I cannot see a logical
reason not to call it a Debian system.
Jim Penny
>
> > No, I'm saying that it is silly to suggest that Debian becomes less free
> > when run on a proprietary OS.
>
> Debian is the complete OS, not some random assemblege of pieces. If
> the complete OS isn't free, then it isn't free.
>
> If you want to take a bunch of Debian packages and port them to
> windoze, feel free! All I ask is:
>
> 1) Don't call it GNU.
> 2) Don't call it Debian.
> 3) Don't use Debian resources for the effort.
>
> Thomas
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
Reply to: