[Fsf-friends] Re: ? Is the GPL completely misunderstood?

[Nagarjuna G.]

On Tue, Apr 08, 2003 at 07:35:39AM +0530, Raju Mathur wrote:
> >>>>> "RMS" == Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:
> 
>     RMS> Your response makes some good points--however, in order to be
>     RMS> a true friend of the FSF, you should not call the whole
>     RMS> system "Linux".
> 
> Heretical as it may sound, I happen to believe that you can support
> freedom in software and GNU without nitpicking over nomenclature.  I
> have been calling the OS Linux since I first used it in 1992, and
> shall continue to do so.  I have also been a strong believer in and
> advocate of software freedom since I got my first GNU tape in 1988,
> and I still see no compelling reasons to associate a name with a
> concept.
> 
> Richard, I was (and, as would be obvious from the message you refer
> to, still am) deeply influenced by your original writings on why
> software should be free, the GNU Manifesto, etc.  They changed the way
> I viewed software and, indirectly, the world.  However since you bring
> it up repeatedly, I do believe that this insistence on the name of the
> OS is creating large amounts of mindless militant-ism, which is doing
> neither Linux nor the free software movement any good.
> 
> If the definition of being a true friend of the FSF is to `toe the
> party line' wrt the name of the OS, then I am definitely not a friend
> of the FSF.  On the other hand, if being a `true friend' of the FSF
> means to write free software, to believe in free software, to promote
> free software and to advocate free software then I am one.

The issue is not to define who is a friend of FSF and who is
not. (RMS's response unfortunately does suggest this implication
though.) This is not the disagreement at all.  The disagreement
as I understand is because you see no compelling reason to
associate a name with a concept.  [You said: "I still see no
compelling reasons to associate a name with a concept."]  

Logically speaking, it is possible to separate a name with a
concept.  On that ground you do have a point.  But history is not
written on the basis of logical possibilities but actualities.
Credits are not given to a movement on the basis of logical
possibilities.  Also, and more important FSF is not fighting for
gaining logical freedom, but practical and actual freedom.

Can you tell us, as a person who genuinely beleive in software
freedom, what is the compeelling non-logical reason for not
associating software freedom with GNU?

I dont think you believe that GNU has not contributed enough.
You may be thinking it is not necessary, but we think it is
necessary (for non-logical reasons).  

To further my argument that names are important and do carry with them
a lot of meaning (and weight) may I seek the following clarification
from you.

You may think that names do not matter for a movement.  I think names,
labels are very important, because names trigger a meaning in one's
mind.  Another reason why your stand is not reasonable is because,
while you enjoy your (logical) freedom of dissociating a name from the
concept of software freedom, you are in actual practice enjoying the
practice of associating the concept of software freedom and the name
`Linux'.  Do you have a compelling non-logical reason for doing this?

Nagarjuna