Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"

["Dimitrie O. Paun" <dpaun@rogers.com>]

On January 9, 2003 02:28 am, Richard Stallman wrote:
> These discussions will never convince those people, but they do win
> support from others who read both sides and find that we have right on
> our side.  So we have something to gain.

I have not touched upon the principle side of things on purpose:
what I'm trying to say is that it does not matter how's right or wrong.

Yes, you can say your campain gains people on the GNU/Linux side, and
you are correct -- it would in any case, it's just the law of large
numbers. You can view that as a gain, and I don't dispute that, but
that gain comes at a huge price: you greatly erode your credibility
and stature within the community. You can use your influence within 
the community in ways that would server the FSF a _lot_ more effectively.

Yes, you will say, but we are _right_. Well, you might be. But the
world is not a fair place, and sometimes you have to accept that.
There is unfairness all over the place: you take credit for other
people's work by putting under the GNU umbrella a lot of stuff you
did not write. That's unfair. Is it fair that Alexandre Julliard,
the Wine (http://www.winehq.org) project leader is listed in a list
together with 200+ other developers that contributed a tiny fraction
of what Alexandre did? No, it's not. There are endless examples of
these in the free software world. Once can not simply state the names
and importance (and _how_ would you gauge *that*?) of every single
contributor when you refer to the system.

And because people like a simple mnemonic, they chose one: Linux.
You would have liked they pick the acronym you invented, but they
didn't. People have chosen. It's a tiny detail in the grand scheme
of things, let's be all happy that a catchy acronym was invented
and addopted, and move on!

-- 
Dimi.