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

[Raj Mathur]

>>>>> "RMS" == Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

    RMS> It is certainly possible to advocate freedom in software and
    RMS> call the system "Linux".  I believe that you do.  It is also
    RMS> possible to contribute to development of the GNU system in
    RMS> specific ways while calling the system "Linux".  It could
    RMS> well be that you have.  But it is impossible to be a true
    RMS> supporter of the GNU Project, or a friend of the FSF, while
    RMS> calling our work by a name that attributes it to someone
    RMS> else.  That is treating us very badly.

    RMS> The basic ethical question of the software field is whether
    RMS> your software is free is; that is the question of how you
    RMS> treat the general public.  How you treat the FSF and the GNU
    RMS> Project is a lesser question--but it does matter to us.  So
    RMS> even while we recognize that you sincerely support the cause
    RMS> of free software, we cannot accept in a list under FSF
    RMS> auspices your practice of attributing our system to someone
    RMS> else.

Firstly there is the whole question of whether Linux is primarily the
work of the GNU project or the FSF.  Most people, including those who
are aware of the history of Linux and GNU prefer to attribute Linux to
Linus Torvalds.  It is only a handful of people in the FSF who claim
that Linus actually wrote the kernel for the GNU operating system and
that hence the OS must be called GNU/Linux.

Even if we leave the origin of Linux aside for a moment we are faced
with the question of whether mindlessly forcing people to call the
operating system GNU/Linux is the right way to spread the message of
free software.  You have effectively told me that in order to be able
to contribute to this list I must conform to your nomenclature.  I
don't know if this is promoting freedom in any way.  Personally I
believe not, though that is just an opinion, just like so many others
floating around.

I very much doubt if forcing the OS to be called by a specific name is
the way to spread the message of any kind of freedom.  I have myself
seen the effect that this misguided passion for defining the name of
the OS has had on the free software community.  There have been
innumerable cases of GNU/FSF advocates managing to alienate precisely
those developers who have significantly contributed to free software,
purely because of vocal and occasionally vituperative differences of
opinion over the name of the OS.

And do recognise that it's just an opinion: some people claim that
Linux is the GNU OS, some claim that it's Linus' OS, and there is no
one single point of view on this matter that has `The Truth' written
on it for all to see.

Freedom on the other hand is not a matter of opinion.  Freedom is
absolute, unshakeable and unarguable.  Which is why I prefer to stick
to the idea of freedom without bothering much about trivial issues
related to names and opinions.

The only thing I can expect from this list now is being barred from
posting, or being forcibly unsubscribed.  If that happens, I would
only be able to conclude that debate and questioning of some ideas is
banned because of their origins -- a conditional freedom, if such a
thing exists, since I know of no other forum where the FSF is willing
to discuss and debate its stance on the name Linux vs GNU/Linux.

Regards,

-- Raju
-- 
Raj Mathur                raju@kandalaya.org      http://kandalaya.org/
                      It is the mind that moves