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

[Jeff Randall <randall@uph.com>]

On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 06:54:59AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
>     I also note that you didn't start your campaign to rename it lignux or
>     GNU/Linux until it was well established and very commonly known as Linux.
> 
> I think we started in 1994 (although mostly privately until 1996).

I personally started using Linux in March of 1992 -- Version 0.94 IIRC.
Linux 2.0 was out by 1996 was it not?  I stand by my 'well established'
comment above.


>     To a lot of people, myself included, this feels like an attempt to steal
>     credit and draw attention to yourself and the FSF by trying to hijack the
>     name of a project that you didn't contribute to, but instead used tools you
>     provided such as gcc and glibc.
> 
> If you believe this is a "project that we didn't contribute to", it's
> natural you would believe the rest.  That's why calling the system
> "Linux" is so unfair.  We started developing this system, and we
> developed more of it than anyone else; but thinking of it as "Linux"
> leads people to focus on the part that we didn't do, and devalue our
> part.  (See http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#tools.)
> 
> That's why we can never go along with calling the system "Linux".  No matter
> how many people do that, we will keep on pointing out why that is wrong.

You developed tools and packages that you intended to put into a system
that you have called the Hurd.  While you were developing all of the various
pieces for that system (Hurd) other people were using those packages on
various other systems -- I used gcc under SunOS and Dynix long before I'd
head of Linux.. And I used more GNU packages than vendor packages on most
of the HP-UX boxes I administrated after college.. You have said in the past
that that doesn't make those GNU/HP-UX Boxes... 

That the various packages and tools developed to support your project
(Hurd) were used by another project developing a seperate operating system
does not give you the right to name that seperate operating system.  Those
people who put together all the various pieces and made it work call it Linux.

I'm going to agree with Larry here.  If you're going to insist that people
call it GNU/Linux, then you had better start referring to your operating
system as Linux/Hurd if you want to retain any credibility.


>     It may be publicity (and there may be no such thing as bad press), but
>     it's not favorable publicity, and it rubs a lot of people who have been
>     involved with Linux a long time the wrong way.
> 
> There are people who get angry at us for correcting the mistaken
> picture, but in the long run it would be self-defeating (as well as
> dishonorable) to bow to such pressure.  See
> http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#alienate.

People get angry because you're being disrespectful and presumptuous to
try and tell people who know exactly what the order of events are that
you and your foundation were actively involved in developing Linux.  That
was not the case and you know it.

Before this whole naming fiasco started, I was a strong supporter of GNU
software.  I am not any longer because of *your* actions, Richard.  I am
still and plan to remain a strong supporter of free software.. but I don't
feel affiliated with the FSF any more.  And that's a pity.



(I'm done with this thread now.)

-- 
randall@uph.com    "It's a big world and you can hit it with any airplane."
                                           -- Flying, August 2000, Page 90.