This article over at PCLinuxOnline.com tries to suggest how the ideals of free software can be better conveyed to the normal computer-using public. It takes an alternate view to the ‘GNU/Linux vs Linux’ naming debate, ignoring entirely the issue of whether ‘Linux’ is an OS or just a kernel, and instead focusing on the notion of freedom.
The Power of GNU
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
There may be more going on here than is said in public. For example, there are occasional technical and policy flareups like Bitkeeper – Stallman would have much greater leverage if the project was universally known as “GNU/Linux”. Then there’s the succession problem – if and when Linus decides to move on with his life, who gets to anoint his successor as kernel tech lead/release manager?
“Linux” is a trademark owned by Linus Torvalds. While the source code of the operating system known by that name is copyrighted into public license, I believe the use of the term GNU/Linux as advocated by Richard Stallman types is nothing less than a trademark violation. If they want to call something GNUlix or whatever, that’s their perogative, but the term “Linux” is clearly the legal property of Mr. Torvalds.
And what should we non-socialist GPL Fanatics do?
What’s that phrase that stallman keeps saying “Think free porn, not free sex“, or is it beer? well, one thing usually leads to other so it doesn’t really matter (and that’s why beer is so important to stallman
).
Sorry for my bad humor, it’s because of the flu
I sympathise with Boshon about FreeBSD.
The BSDs have ported most if not all the GNU software. Why do I use a Linux distro? Commercial app support. I’m a Java developer so I’m suck with Windows or Linux for the latest JDK.
Alledgedly you can *imperfectly* emulate Linux’s JVM under FreeBSD, but if that’s the only app you need to emulate it’s simpler just to use Mandrake (insert GNU/Linux distro advocacy here).
Perhaps if Sun helped the *BSD guys out with their JVM port I might switch.
Same with OSX: nice eye candy, no JVM yet:
http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/02/10/25/2218225.shtml?tid=108
I’d like to know why people think the GPL is socialism or communism. I’m a market anarchist (or anarcho-capitalist if you prefer), and I use GPL’ed software at home whenever possible, and when I write software at home I release it under the GPL. Now, for those who are not familiar with market anarchy or anarcho-capitalism, it is about as far away from communism as you can get. So if the GPL really is socialism, I have a rather serious issue to deal with.
I normally don’t post but is it just me or do the anti GPL zealots seem more aggressive then the pro GPL zealots today?
Wow, not only you insult a software/political ideology, you must insult a religion? Man, I have to agree with Gardiner on this one.
GPL in its essence is similar to socialism, but it is for software, and not for normal daily life. If you read Robert Owen’s book, and start to read RMS’ philosophies, you can immediately point out the similarities.
And there’s nothing wrong with that. You support two different idelogies for two different situation (the economic market place, and software distribution). And that’s what I call pagmatic (when though I don’t agree with either philosophies.
IMO software is not the same kind of economic good as, say for example, a car. If you buy a car from the dealer, they don’t have it anymore; if you buy a program, the vendor still has it. The element of scarcity, which is the basis of economics, is missing in the case of software.
Actually, I don’t really think that the GPL is communist. The concept of software ownership in the open source community is actually quite strong from what I’ve seen, though I think not many people will admit it. For example, forking is considered to be a very bad thing; but if no one owns the software, what’s wrong with it?
Linux isn’t free. Can I take the Linux sources and do what I want? I guess this is the notion of freedom, isn’t it? No I can’t, so I suppose Linux is not a free experience.
IBM say always open-source, not free-source, and they are absolutely right. I don’t understand why not so many GPL people always talking about freedom have ever realized what freedom really means…
Proprietary software/closed source is not evil, and neither does GPL ‘stifle artistic creativity’. They are merely two different forms of licensing, and there’s nothing inherently wrong with either one.
If I were to code something here at home and wanted to release it for others to use, I would probably release the source code, simply to see if anyone else could modify it and improve on the original that I crated.
However, if the project was much bigger .. something that took years to create, along with thousands or maybe eve MILLIONS of dollars, and I wanted to make money with it, I’ll be DAMMED if I’m going to release the source code so that you can steal my code, modify it, and hand it out to your friends. If it is a pet project, sure .. you can touch it and do whatever you want with it. However, if it is the lifeblood behind business, you ain’t going anywhere near it!
Of course, we have all seen the bad end of proprietary software (DRM, product activation, etc), but it doesn’t have to be that way – it just depends on whether you abuse it or not. Recently, I purchased a shareware program which I am allowed to use on as many computers as I want. To me, that’s fair use, even if I don’t have access to the source code. And as far as proprietary file formats go, I would assume that mp3 is a proprietary file format, though if you choose to use it, you aren’t locked in to any program or operating systems. So, proprietary doesn’t automaticaly mean locked in.
PS – And just for the record, anyone who has arguments on whether Linux should be called ‘Linux’ or ‘GNU/Linux’ REALLY needs to get out more
Well, if you are afraid of using “communist” sofwtare while supporting a capitalist society – you are actually doing capitalism a service. You are using your choice as a consumer to pick out software based on a agreement that you yourself agree. The communism in GPL, for me is destructive if gets out of hand. To you, you agree it is the best way to distribute software, I don’t think you should hide the fact that it is similar to communism/ socialism/ collectivism. Because if you do, you are no longer the pagmatic man yesterday I said you were.
I’ve wanted to say my view on this somewhere and here is definatly a much better place (more open minded) then say /. for example.
I think it is ENTIRELY up to the distrobutions to call it how they want it. Debian GNU/linux, Redhat Linux, etc. Linux isn’t the OS, GNU isn’t the OS. They are both two pieces of the puzzle, but not the entire puzzle. I think that the person who puts all the pieces together has the right to name it what they want. If Lindows.com wants to call their OS LindowsOS (note no linux or gnu in there – in reality they might mention it I don’t really know or care) that is their choice.