From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 08:31:50 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 08:31:50 -0500 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]:38541 "EHLO fencepost.gnu.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 08:31:49 -0500 From: Richard Stallman To: lm@bitmover.com CC: acahalan@cs.uml.edu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-reply-to: <20030106173705.GP1386@work.bitmover.com> (message from Larry McVoy on Mon, 6 Jan 2003 09:37:05 -0800) Subject: Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" Reply-to: rms@gnu.org References: <200301050802.h0582u4214558@saturn.cs.uml.edu> <20030106173705.GP1386@work.bitmover.com> Message-Id: Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2003 08:40:26 -0500 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org It is the ultimate in hypocrisy to ask others for something you aren't willing to do yourself. I, for one, will remind you of this every time you bring up GNU/Linux in this list. These two cases are similar, but not in the way you think. In both cases a large structure that is basically GNU or of GNU has a component that is Linux or of Linux. So why do we treat them differently? In general, there's no ethical obligation to cite each and every component of a larger structure in the structure's name. But in the case of "GNU/Linux" there are some specific reasons why it is useful and proper to mention "Linux" in the name. See http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#justgnu.