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

[Raj Mathur]

>>>>> "NG" == Nagarjuna G <nagarjun@hbcse.tifr.res.in> writes:

    NG> 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.

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

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

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

I would happily call the OS GNU/Linux if it weren't for two underlying
assumptions:

1.  That calling the OS GNU/Linux is helping spread the message of
freedom.  In my opinion (which is much more valuable to me that anyone
else's) it is having precisely the opposite effect.

2.  That calling the OS GNU/Linux is a prerequisite for being able to
have a rational and reasonable discussion in this (or any
FSF-sponsored) forum.

I strongly believe in freedom, including my freedom to call the OS
Linux and yours to call it GNU/Linux.  Do not try to take that freedom
away from me, in however restricted a context.

For instance, I founded the India Linux Users Group, Delhi
(ILUG-Delhi).  We don't call ourselves the India GNU/Linux Users
Group, but we don't force people to call the OS either Linux or
GNU/Linux.  It is a matter of personal choice.  We prefer to spread
the message of freedom in other, perhaps more effective, ways.

    NG> [snip]

Regards,

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