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

Vlad@Vlad.geekizoid.com
2003-01-09T02:17:11Z

Do you actually buy your own bullshit here? If so, that's sad. I used to
respect you. I'd like to see you put your money where your mouth is - PROVE
that GNU (not just people who have release GPL'd software) contributed most
of the work to say Slackware, or Debian, or Red Hat.

Face it - you're full of it. You're not fooling anyone either.

-----Original Message-----
From: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
[mailto:linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org]On Behalf Of Richard Stallman
Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 2:00 AM
To: lm@bitmover.com
Cc: lm@bitmover.com; acahalan@cs.uml.edu; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"

Great. So not only is there no legal need to cite GNU in the Linux
name, there is no ethical obligation either.

When you take part of my statement, stretch it, interpret it based on
assumptions you know I disagree with, and present the result as
something I said, that doesn't prove anything. It is childish.

There is no ethical obligation to mention secondary contributions
incorporated in a large project. There ethical obligation is to cite
the main developer. In the GNU/Linux system, the GNU Project is the
principal contributor; the system is more GNU than anything else,
and we started it.