Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers?

[Bill Huey (Hui) <billh@gnuppy.monkey.org>]

On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 12:13:01PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> I decided in 1983 to develop a Unix-compatible operating system, and
> then chose the name GNU for it.  In 1990, after finding or writing
> most of the necessary components, we started developing a kernel for
> the GNU system; that kernel is the GNU Hurd.  Since Linux was working
> long before the Hurd, people mostly use GNU with Linux instead.
> 
> See http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html for the history of GNU.

I hate to say it to you, but that URL reads like the typical BSD arguments
that I get, where embittered engineers whine about how a kernel is key to
and entire software development process. Both HURD and the BSDs are simply
irrelevant to the entire GNU/GPL phenomenon as we know it and has been
usurpted completely by Linux and all the applications support that has come
as a result of its popularity.

I mean, FreeBSD is a free system, yet why didn't it create an entire movement
of free software like Linux did ?

That's because they lack several components:
	1) Social and political awareness.
	2) Timeliness and ultimately completeness (useability).

BSD has (2) but lacks (1).  HURD lacks (2) and because of that, it can't
achieve (1).

Linux has both and was done in an open enough way that it not just gave the
foundation to the entire GPL movement as we know it, but also showed the
community that a large scale project like this has HUGE political, social
and economic implications that were previous unimagineable. HURD and the
old school GPL folks are irrelevant because it never had the scale or impact
of Linux, which is why Linux is pretty much it's own phenomenon outside of
GPL as you've stated it.  

I mean, you've got to accept that and give folks credit for achieving
these things.

bill